Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL

Lords Amendment considered, pursuant to Order [22nd July], and agreed to.

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

SLOUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—(The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

RHODESIA RAILWAYS LIMITED (PENSION SCHEMES AND CONTRACTS) BILL [Lords]

Standing Orders 179 (Printing of amended Bill), 180 (Re-deposit of Bill before Consideration), 181 (Time between Report and Consideration of Bill, &c.), and 201 (Notice of Consideration of Bill) suspended and Bill to be considered forthwith, amended copies of the Bill having been previously deposited.—(The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the third time forthwith.—(The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Wireless Sets (Inspectors' Visits)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that at 11.15 a.m. on 30th June a Post Office inspector called at 72, Meadowside, Eltham, S.E.9, the residence of Mr. R. E. Cross and demanded to see the wireless licence, although he has not got a wireless set; that when Mrs. Cross stated this fact he said he would have to search the house and attempted to force an entry but was forcibly prevented from doing so by Mrs. Cross; that he further stated he would apply for a search warrant; and what action he proposes to take in this case and in others of attempted entry brought to his notice by the hon. Member for Canterbury.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): The inquiry officer of my Department who visited No. 72, Meadowside, Eltham, denies emphatically that he attempted to force an entry. He states that he requested permission to enter in order to verify that a wireless receiving set was not in use, but permission was refused and he accepted the refusal. I have no means of reconciling the very different versions of the incident given in the hon. Member's Question and by my inquiry officer; but whichever version is correct, and whatever led to Mrs. Cross's complaint, I much regret any inconvenience or distress she may have felt.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) has brought two other complaints to my notice. In one, which occurred last January, the Head Postmaster was asked by the householder to verify that the visit was genuine, and he did so. In the other, which occurred in March, the householder reported that the visit had occasioned some distress to his wife and an apology was made. In neither case was any complaint or suggestion of entry or search made. In the hope of reducing to the utmost the occasions of complaint, I have had the instructions about the conduct of these inquiries revised.

Mr. Baker White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of Mrs. Cross the inspector who visited the house put his foot in the doorway so that Mrs. Cross was unable to close it, that he refused to accept her statement that she had not a wireless at all, and that he got into a temper and threatened to get a search warrant? Is he further aware that when I asked him on 6th June about the case of Miss Clarke, at Herne Bay, he said that no other cases had been brought to his notice during his term of office at the Post Office? I have brought three other cases to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and proceedings reported in the Press yesterday indicate that another case has occurred at Reading.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the new instructions will make it clear to his officers that they have no right of entry, and make it clear to the householder that they can only enter with the householder's consent.

Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir.

Wireless Licences (Final Notices)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are taken by the Wireless Records branch of his Department to confirm that persons to whom their final notices are sent are still residents at the addresses to which these notices are delivered.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: There is a note on every wireless licence asking for permanent changes of address to be notified. My staff can only send the reminder notices to the addresses which people have given. Final notices, which are third reminders, are sent by registered post and therefore the Post Office knows at once if they are not accepted at the place of address.

Mail Services, China (Suspension)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Postmaster-General why his mail services to Manchuria and the provinces of North and Central China have been suspended.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Transport facilities have unfortunately ceased to be available.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the real reason is

not that the Americans asked the Government to cut off these communications? Is he not aware that, in fact, the American Government did cut off their communications just a bit before and it was reported that they asked our Government to agree to do the same? In face of that, can he assure us that that has nothing to do with the decision?

Mr. Paling: The real reason is the one which I have just stated.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Would my right hon. Friend consider appointing the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) as a courier to run between the two?

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION

Station, Manchester (Site)

Squadron-Leader Fleming: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has approved the site at Holme Moss, chosen by the British Broadcasting Corporation for a television station to cover Manchester City and adjoining areas.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Yes, Sir.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Until the station is actually working, which I expect will take some time, has the right hon. Gentleman's Department any objection to a firm like Pye Television and Radio Co., of Cambridge, setting up an installation in that area?

Mr. Paling: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is the Postmaster-General making plans to cover the whole of the United Kingdom and not giving preference to favourite areas?

Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir.

Yorkshire

Dr. Broughton: asked the Postmaster-General the approximate date on which television broadcasts will begin in Yorkshire.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I regret that I cannot give a date at present; but it is unlikely to be less than two years hence.

Dr. Broughton: As many people in Yorkshire and Lancashire would like to have television in their homes and clubs, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will keep a close watch on


the construction of the new broadcasting station, so that it will be brought into operation as soon as possible?

Mr. Paling: Yes; the sooner it is brought into operation the better I shall be pleased.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend also keep in mind the fact that there are a great many people in Scotland in the same position?

Mr. Speaker: I did not know that Scotland was in Yorkshire. This Question relates to Yorkshire.

Sir R. Ross: Could the Postmaster-General circulate a list of approximate times by which the various areas in the United Kingdom are likely to get television?

Mr. Paling: I do not think we are at that point yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Kiosks, Rural Areas

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Postmaster-General how many telephone kiosks are to be allocated to the Leek and Cheadle rural areas in the coming year.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Fourteen telephone kiosks have been allocated to the rural areas of Staffordshire. Location of the individual kiosks will be fixed in consultation with the Staffordshire Branch of the Rural District Councils' Association when it has assessed the relative merits of the various applications within the county.

Mr. Davies: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him if I am to understand from it that 14 are allotted to the whole of the county of Staffordshire? Secondly, on what formula does my right hon. Friend allocate kiosks to the rural areas?

Mr. Paling: We make arrangements for the allocation of these kiosks with the rural authorities' association and the national associations. We leave it to them. We have so many to allocate each year and they allocate them in the best way possible.

Mr. Watkins: asked the Postmaster-General the quotas of telephone kiosks

which are to be provided in the rural areas in each county in Wales; how are applications for kiosks to be dealt with; and upon what date will this new plan commence.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: The quotas of telephone kiosks allotted to the rural areas of each county in Wales are: Anglesey, 6; Caernarvon, 12; Denbigh, 16; Flint, 5; Merioneth, 13; Montgomery, 16; Brecknock, 12; Cardigan, 16; Carmarthen, 21; Glamorgan, 10; Monmouth, 9; Pembroke, 13; Radnor, 10.
Under the new plan for the provision of rural kiosks, applications are made to rural district councils, and the county branches of the Rural District Councils' Association recommend to the Post Office the order in which the kiosks should be installed in each county. It is hoped that work on the kiosks approved under the new plan will commence in the autumn, but in the meantime work already started on any kiosks agreed to under the previous scheme is being completed.

Blackpool

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Postmaster-General how many persons in Blackpool have applied for a telephone to be connected to their homes or business addresses respectively and have not yet been granted one; and how long it will be before the last of those who have applied will be granted a telephone.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: In the county borough of Blackpool 1,026 residential and 2,004 business applications for telephones are outstanding. One thousand two hundred and twenty applications were met during the last twelve months. I regret that in view of the shortage of plant and pressure of essential work in the Preston Telephone Area, I cannot at present forecast when all outstanding applications are likely to be cleared.

Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the proper priority is given to the provision of telephones in Blackpool? Is he aware that some business people and some residential applicants have been waiting for nearly three years since the first date of application?

Mr. Paling: The last statement may be correct. I am not aware that that


is so, but it may be so. In view of the shortage, we have gone to considerable trouble to work out a system of priorities which would be as fair as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Bombing Range, Frampton Sand

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now give an assurance that he will not interfere with the main winter haunt in Britain of anser albifrons albifrons by establishing a range for heavy bombers at Frampton Sand on the Severn.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Frietas): My right hon. Friend cannot yet add to the reply he gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) on 22nd June.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Under-Secretary of State say what is the reason for the delay?

Mr. de Freitas: The reasons for such delay as exists are twofold. First, we have to find another range in that area and, secondly, we have to consult the experts, the greatest of whom, Mr. Peter Scott, is at present in the Arctic.

Airfield, Horsham St. Faith's

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the estimated selling value of Horsham St. Faith's Air Station.

Mr. de Freitas: This would depend on the purpose it was sold for, but it would certainly be much less than the cost of replacement. Since it is not proposed that the airfield should be given up, no purpose would be served by exploring the market.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is it not clear that, owing to the proximity of this airfield to a great industrial centre, the value of the land and buildings has increased considerably, apart from their particular Service purpose? Could not consideration be given to selling the site and moving to another aerodrome, bearing in mind that the value of the site would help on the financial side?

Mr. de Freitas: It is possible that the value of the site has increased for some purposes, but under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, we should have to sell it as an airfield.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESTWICK AIRPORT

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will now submit the dispute between his Department and Scottish Aviation Limited to a public inquiry regarding the proposed compulsory acquisition of Prestwick Airport by his Department.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): No, Sir. This firm and another interested party have been given the opportunity to state their objections before an independent person appointed for the purpose, whose report has now been received and is under consideration.

Sir T. Moore: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the spokesman of the Ministry was not allowed to be cross-examined by the counsel for the company? Is he aware that this is not a small local affair, but is an issue which concerns the whole of Scotland, since this company was a pioneer of civil aviation in Scotland. Will he not take some steps to deal with the matter properly?

Mr. Lindgren: All the interested parties in Scotland were quite satisfied with the exception of a vested interest—Scottish Aviation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister give an idea how much money has been spent by this company and how much by the State?

Mr. Lindgren: Most of the buildings and the machinery used at the present time at Prestwick by Scottish Aviation are owned by the Crown. The company has paid no rent for four years and, as the day of reckoning approaches, every delaying tactic possible is used, and this is one of them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by the expression "vested interest"?

Mr. Lindgren: Perhaps a better term would be a "personal interest" as against a public interest.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that Scottish Aviation have been using the buildings and machinery at Prestwick Airport without paying any rent for nearly four years, will those factors be taken into consideration in any final settlement which is reached?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, but in fairness I ought to say that the reason for the non-payment of rent is that there has been argument the whole time as between what Scottish Aviation thinks is a fair rent and what the Crown thinks is a fair rent.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.N.O. (UNDEVELOPED AREAS)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take on the proposals of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations organisation for the economic development of backward areas.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): His Majesty's Government warmly support the principles underlying the United Nations proposals for the economic development of under-developed areas and intend as far as their resources permit to make an appropriate contribution to the cost of implementing these proposals in the form in which they emerge from the discussions now taking place in the Economic and Social Council at Geneva.

Mr. Reid: Have the council made any proposal for financing these developments by members of the United Nations?

Sir T. Moore: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question will he say whether the proposals will include, in addition to economic developments, sartorial developments?

Mr. McNeil: I imagine that they will refer to working clothes.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (EASTERN FRONTIER)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what stage during the war was it decided by the three Great Powers that Poland's Eastern frontier should be adjusted at the termination of hostilities to the Curzon line.

Mr. McNeil: At the Crimea Conference in February, 1945, it was decided by the heads of the Governments of the Three Great Powers that the Eastern frontier of Poland should follow the Curzon line with digressions from it in some regions of five to eight kilometres in favour of Poland. As my hon. Friend will doubtless recollect, a tripartite announcement to this effect was published on 13th February, 1945.

Mr. Stokes: I know all about that. That is why I asked the question. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he still denies that this decision was taken at Teheran? If he still does, will he study the statement made by M. Mikolajczyk, who told us quite definitely what he was confronted with when he visited Moscow?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think I can add to what I have already said on this subject, now and previously. I have no doubt that discussion took place at Teheran and equally I have no doubt that discussion took place at many other points upon this same subject. The decision is as I have announced.

Mr. Stokes: If I send my right hon. Friend documents on this matter will he please study them and make a statement in this House?

Mr. McNeil: I will be delighted to study anything which my right hon. Friend sends me. I frequently do, and then I discuss with him what subsequent action to take.

Brigadier Head: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that one of the lessons learned from the war is that it would have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble if the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) had been taken to Yalta and Teheran?

Mr. Stokes: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question may I respectfully suggest to him that the outcome of the war would have been much more satisfactory if I had been.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the Anglo-Guatemalan dispute over British Honduras; and what is the prospect of an early agreement.

Mr. McNeil: I fear that there seems little prospect of an early agreement in this matter. His Majesty's Government remain willing to allow the dispute to be settled by the International Court of Justice, whom they specially empowered to settle any and all claims concerning British Honduras over three years ago. This is the obvious way in which a dispute of this kind should be settled.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS DAY (OBSERVANCE)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to bring to the notice of the public on 24th October, United Nations Day, the importance of the United Nations and its achievements up to date.

Mr. McNeil: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) yesterday.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to co-operate with the United Nations Association, who hope to get the co-operation of representatives of all political parties?

Mr. McNeil: We are, as we normally are, in contact with the Association. Of course, we will co-operate with them and agree upon the most effective methods.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (CONFERENCE)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature and outcome of the conference of British diplomatic representatives accredited to countries of the Middle East.

Mr. McNeil: The conference of His Majesty's representatives in the Middle East is not yet concluded.

Mr. Platts-Mills: While this conference is going on will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to see that nothing is done to try to re-establish the policy in the Middle East which we know has come completely unstuck, and see that

something is done to support and establish the people of the Middle East so that they can run their own policy?

Major Tufton Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider placing better facilities at the disposal of the Pakistan Government to keep closely in touch with the deliberations taking place?

Mr. McNeil: Our relations with the Government of Pakistan are naturally of the most cordial and intimate kind. I should think that it is extremely unlikely that any request from them would be set aside. There are methods of communication with that Government which reside in the Ministry of Commonwealth Relations.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUNISIA (WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken in recent months to bring about an agreement with Tunisia concerning war damage payments to British residents there; and what are the numbers of Maltese and other British subjects respectively, claiming such compensation.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government have been engaged in assembling the data required before approaching the French Government for an extension of the Anglo-French agreement of 3rd December, 1946, to French overseas territories, including Tunisia. The number of British claims notified to His Majesty's Consul-General at Tunis is 103, of which 80 are Maltese.

Mr. Teeling: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman hurry up this matter a bit? It is now some months since I asked him before, when he said he was trying to do his level best. If it is the case that some Colonies have more trouble than other Colonies, will the right hon. Gentleman try to deal with Tunisia alone, which has the greatest number of British people?

Mr. McNeil: I should be very anxious to help the hon. Gentleman but I scarcely, think that it would be practicable to discuss Tunisia alone. Any extension in the agreement will depend upon the clause in the parent agreement relating to reciprocity. We must therefore have a full picture on either side before we discuss the agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (EXECUTIONS)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any definite news from the Yugoslav Government as to the fate of the six Yugoslavs handed over by the British authorities in Germany on 2nd August, 1948.

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir. I understand that three of these men have been sentenced to death and executed. I have no further information about the fate of the three others but hope that this may be available shortly, in which case I shall be glad to communicate it to my hon. Friend. I am pressing for the date of the three executions, to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIELD-MARSHAL VON RUNDSTEDT

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent application he has received from Field-Marshal von Rundstedt to be tried before the same court as Field-Marshal Manstein in order to clear himself of the charge of being a war criminal; and under which of the five groups he has now been classified for the purpose of denazification.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has received no such application from Field-Marshal von Rundstedt, but I understand that one has been made to the Regional Commissioner of the Land Niedersachsen. I will write to my hon. Friend when I have examined this application. I am also looking into the question of von Rundstedt's denazification category.

Mr. Stokes: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that, so far as my information goes, the Field-Marshal has been put into category 1, which means that all his assets there are blocked and that he is now living in a state of extreme poverty and destitution?

Major Beamish: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any N.C.O.S or other ranks in the German Army are being tried at the same time or are likely to be tried in the future? If they are, will the right hon. Gentleman give that information to the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. McNeil: I dare say that my right hon. Friend will be completely informed upon that subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R.

Forced Labour Camps (Inquiry)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the terms of the request His Majesty's Government are making to the Economic and Social Council for an investigation by the United Nations as to the conditions existing in slave camps; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. McNeil: I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the forced labour camps which exist in the Soviet Union and certain other countries. The Economic and Social Council at its last session adopted a resolution which declared that an impartial inquiry was desirable into the charges that had been made concerning forced labour in certain countries. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was instructed to ask all Governments if they would be prepared to co-operate in such an inquiry. His Majesty's Government have declared that they would be willing to co-operate in any such inquiry which is generally acceptable, and it is our hope that all other Governments will do likewise. This subject is due for discussion at the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in the near future.

Mr. Fletcher: Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether it is true that the Soviet Government have consistently refused to give permission to the United Nations to visit these camps? Is he aware that so long as this policy of secrecy is maintained the public are compelled, however reluctantly, to draw the worst conclusions about the barbarous conditions that exist?

Mr. McNeil: It certainly is quite true that the delegation from Soviet Russia at the last meeting of the Council at which this matter was discussed refused to admit the terms of a resolution which provided for investigation upon the spot. It is probably true that people will continue to draw regrettable conclusions from the continued refusal of Soviet Russia to accede to such a request.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the original answer of the Minister that there are forced labour camps in the Soviet Union, may I ask him two simple questions? One is: Is it not a fact that the Soviet delegation have tabled a motion at the


council in favour of investigation of working conditions in all countries and Colonies, including the Soviet Union? The second question is: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I sent a letter to his neighbour on the Front Bench, in which I showed that the present Foreign Secretary, when he was Secretary to the Transport and General Workers' Union, condemned this story as a lie and a slander, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that the letter is communicated to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations?

Mr. McNeil: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that delegations of the Soviet Union have in my opinion continued to evade this question by proposals—

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. My question was: Has the Soviet delegation tabled a motion?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not dictate to the Minister how he shall answer.

Mr. McNeil: I will answer the first of the three points put to me by the hon. Gentleman bluntly and factually, in a fashion he will not like. It is my opinion that the Soviet delegation—

Mr. Gallacher: I want the facts.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman shall have the facts, but I am entitled to draw an opinion from the facts. It is my opinion that the Soviet delegation have continued to attempt to evade this issue by claiming that investigations should take place. To that effect they have tabled a resolution which was a counter-resolution to one which demanded an inquiry into labour conditions in all countries. The Soviet delegation have on this subject, as on others, refused to allow United Nations investigators to proceed to the spot to make an inquiry which would satisfy dispassionate witnesses.
On the second point, I am not aware of the letter, but since I saw an article about this in the "Daily Worker," I think it probable that the hon. Gentleman has written a letter in similar terms.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: If, as appears probable, the Soviet Government persist in their refusal to allow an inquiry to

take place with visits to the actual places, will it be the policy of His Majesty's Government to urge upon the United Nations the desirability of the fullest possible publicity and publication of such facts as can be gleaned without a local investigation?

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. I do not think that would be profitable or useful or—I am not sure—appropriate, but I am certain that, as long as the Soviet Government adopt this attitude, even people who wish desperately to be friendly with them cannot escape coming to the conclusion that they have something to hide.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the document quoted at Geneva was dated 1940, what official protests were made between 1940 and 1946 against slave labour in Russia? If the Government object to slave labour, is it intended to continue conscription?

Mr. McNeil: The second part of the supplementary question is a confusion, and in any case it should not be directed to me. My recollection is that the publication date of the Codex was 1943—I might be wrong in that—but at any rate, whatever the date was, we took into account any subsequent amendments to the regulations. The subsequent amendments have been published. I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head.

Mr. Hughes: I am asking what protests the Government made.

Mr. McNeil: If the Soviet administration publishes alterations to the parent regulations, we are right to assume that the parent regulations are still in force. As to protests, we have several times at the United Nations attempted to have this subject investigated.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon Friend aware that I have repeatedly asked the Soviet Government to let me visit some of the slave camps—and have named them—and that I have been consistently refused?

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this story about slave labour camps in the Soviet Union is the oldest and the least founded of all the silly anti-Soviet twaddle; and that in 1931 it was the Swedish timber exporters who began the story to prevent the


British people from buying Soviet timber, that Goebbels continued it actively for eight or 10 years, and that now His Majesty's Ministers have taken it up? Is he not rather shamed by that?

Mr. McNeil: Whatever may have been the facts in 1931, this is no fabrication of the Swedish timber trade or His Majesty's Government or any other government. It is a publication and an enforcement made by the administration of Soviet Russia—

Mr. Gallacher: What about this country 20 years ago?

Mr. McNeil: —and whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, these are the facts, and no wriggling can escape from that.

Broadcasts (Interference)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Soviet Government to desist from jamming the overseas broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. McNeil: The jamming operations—

Mr. Haire: I cannot hear the answer.

Mr. McNeil: It must be due to the jamming activities of some hon. Members.
The jamming operations undertaken by the Soviet authorities are clearly part of their general policy of preventing any information from reaching the Russian people other than that which they select and issue themselves. My right hon. Friend therefore doubts whether any useful purpose would be served by diplomatic representations upon this subject.

Mr. Haire: Is it not most exceptional in peacetime for one nation to jam the broadcast of another? Is there any evidence that any other nations are having their broadcasts jammed? Would my right hon. Friend say that their attitude to the B.B.C. is clear evidence that the Soviet are frightened to allow their workers to know the truth?

Mr. Gallacher: What about Northern Ireland?

Mr. McNeil: I cannot answer the first part of the supplementary question without notice, but I am afraid that the second part is completely true.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Have any representations been made? Is it not an admission of defeat not to make representations to the Soviet Government? Will representations be made if this has not already been done?

Mr. McNeil: No formal representations have been made because it is not an accident. If a Government takes such deliberate action to shut out information, it is reasonable to assume that they are not likely to be moved by diplomatic representation from a major decision which seems to them of great importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER POLICY

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish as a White Paper any declarations which committed this country to the policy of unconditional surrender following President Roosevelt's statement at Casablanca.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the grievance expressed by the Foreign Secretary in the Debate last Thursday because he was not consulted about this, and as many people in this country think that this slogan prolonged the war indefinitely, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to put the documents in the Library?

Mr. McNeil: I understand the feelings of my hon. Friend on this subject very well. However, there was fairly substantial Press publication on the subject at the time, and at any rate I think he would agree that it would be an unusual departure from normal practice. These documents are usually published after the heat and dust have disappeared and after they have become accessible to professional historians.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in future when a matter like this comes up for decision it shall be a Cabinet decision and shall not be decided by an individual member of the Cabinet without other members being consulted?

Mr. McNeil: I think that my hon. Friend is not talking about this Government.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to give all these guarantees, will he also give a guarantee that in any future war the leader of an Allied State, to quarrel with whom would be a disaster to this country, will also consult our Cabinet before he makes a statement?

Mr. Stokes: Is it not important that the British people should understand the extent to which this unconditional surrender was discussed before the declaration was made? That is the important point.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (FEDERATION PROPOSALS)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can report any progress in the policy of establishing a customs union, or federation of the West Indies.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): The Customs Union Commission has been at work since January, and the Standing Closer Association Committee has held three meetings. I understand that these bodies hope to report in October.

Mr. Reid: Is there any chance of an official decision being reached on this matter when the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, Lord Listowel, goes to the West Indies next November?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have no doubt that this matter will be one of the things discussed at the meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL)

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the recent proposals to reconstitute the Legislative Council in Sierra Leone have progressed.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Proposals by the Governor, which are put forward as a basis for public discussion, were published in Sierra Leone in June.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Development Schemes (Finance)

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what approach has been made to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for assistance in developing the Colonies; what schemes are under review; and, since such help would be a means of easing the dollar problem and advancing development schemes, if he will take steps to secure it forthwith.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, West (Mr. H. D. Hughes) on 16th March. The discussions between the International Bank and the Colonial Development Corporation are proceeding. As regards possible borrowing from the International Bank by Colonial Governments themselves, it was explained in the debates on the Colonial Loans Bill that the purpose of that Bill was to enable His Majesty's Government to guarantee any loans from the Bank for which Colonial Governments might apply. No such applications have yet been made, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot force the pace.

Geological Survey (Technicians)

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is expected that the 28 American geologists and associated scientists mentioned in Command Paper No. 7715, paragraph 291, will be temporarily attached to the Colonial Geological Survey Service; and what work it is proposed to assign to them.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Negotiations with the Economic Co-operation Administration on conditions of employment have now reached an advanced stage and it is hoped that recruitment will begin in the near future. These technicians will supplement existing geological establishments in the Colonies.

Mr. Robinson: Can the hon. Gentleman say how soon this excellent plan will become a reality?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Quite soon. We have had the preliminary proposals from the Americans and sent them to the Colonies for their approval.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Police Action (Legal Proceedings)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what compensation will be paid to the families of workers who were killed by the police in the riot of June, 1948 at the Enmore plantation, in view of the Report of the Enmore Commission, which states that firing went beyond the requirements of the situation and that many workers were shot in the back.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Actions have been filed in the Supreme Court of British Guiana claiming damages against five police constables and the question of compensation is therefore sub judice.

European Families (Settlement)

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is now proposed to proceed with the trial settlement of about 200 European families in the Kanuku Mountains area of British Guiana as recommended in the Evans Report.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Report emphasised that European settlement would depend entirely on access by road to the interior savannah country. Any trial settlement must, therefore, wait until there is at least a definite prospect that this long and costly road can be built.

Mr. Robinson: As the number of these displaced persons continues to be great, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he can expedite the matter, as it was recommended by his Committee?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, the hon. Member will realise that the total cost of the road will be £2,750,000 and the matter needs a good deal of consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SARAWAK (MR. ANTHONY BROOKE)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason censorship is applied to letters and telegrams despatched by Mr. Anthony Brooke from Singapore and this country to Sarawak.

Mr. Rees-Williams: So far as I am aware, Mr. Brooke's correspondence is not censored either here or in the Far East. If my hon. Friend will let me have the evidence on which his Question is based, I will look into it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I will let my hon. Friend look into it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons the ban on the entry of Mr. Anthony Brooke into Sarawak is still maintained.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) on 26th January, last.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a real encroachment on the liberty of the subject. If Mr. Anthony Brooke has done something wrong, why is he not charged with an offence and brought to book in that way?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not accept my hon. Friend's description of this matter at all.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that when any prisoner is condemned in the Army now his case is looked into every so many months, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how often the case of Mr. Brooke is gone into by the Colonial Office?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I should think the two things are entirely different, but we have the matter under constant review.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (COMMUNIST PUBLICATIONS)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why permission is given to Communists in Hong Kong to continue the publication of newspapers and pamphlets in view of the closing by the Communist authorities in Shanghai of the British Information Service.

Mr. Rees-Williams: It has been the consistent policy of the Hong Kong Government to permit freedom of the Press and of publication to all shades of opinion provided activities contrary to the law or prejudicial to public security in Hong Kong are not indulged in. In general,


these limits have not been overstepped. The restrictive tendencies of the Communist administration in China in relation to the freedom of news and information services are, however, naturally being closely watched both by His Majesty's Government and by the Government of Hong Kong.

Mr. Gammans: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that he can continue that attitude when the Chinese Communist Government do not allow the opposite to operate in Shanghai and, secondly, when it will probably be only a matter of months before the Chinese Communist forces will be investing Hong Kong?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I think the last part of the supplementary question is a very foolish statement. I would also draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that both Reuters and the "North China Daily News" are still functioning in China.

Mr. Gammans: Will the hon. Gentleman say why my statement was foolish when the Chinese Communist Government have made it perfectly clear what are their intentions to the West and when it is obvious that before long they will be controlling the whole of South China? Where does the foolishness come in?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Because, as far as I am aware, the Communist Government have never stated that they are going to invest Hong Kong.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not true that nothing but good reports have come from the liberated areas and that the leaders of the liberating forces are anxious to have an understanding with the representatives of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Harold Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that if we follow a vigorous Labour policy in the Colonies that will be much more constructive than a negative policy of witch hunting every little Communist paper which may be published in the Colonies?

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST (RUBBER PRICES)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what discussions have taken place at an official level with the Government of the United States of

America regarding the political effects in the Far East of the low price of rubber.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The situation in the Far East is a matter on which, as in other matters of common concern, constant contact is maintained with the United States Government, and the consequences of the low price of rubber are, of course, a factor to which full consideration is given.

Mr. Gammans: Will the hon. Gentleman say what he meant in this House a week ago when he said it would be quite impossible to maintain security in the Far East if rubber fell any further and went on to say,
I hope that those who are concerned in this matter will realise that I mean what I say …?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1949; Vol. 467, c. 1509.]
To whom was that addressed?

Mr. Rees-Williams: It was addressed to those concerned in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (BANNED PERIODICAL)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the latest development in discussions regarding the banning in Kenya of the periodical "Labour Monthly"; and which articles in the two issues immediately preceding the ban were not considered suitable for circulation in Kenya.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not aware of any developments, or that any discussions have taken place. This is a matter within the competence of the Governor, who is not required to give reasons for the ban, or to indicate which articles were not considered suitable for circulation in Kenya.

Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that the last three issues of "Labour Monthly" contained eight contributions from hon. Members of the party opposite? Does he not think it a most unfortunate thing that so-called supporters of his party can contribute so freely to a subversive publication?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The hon. and gallant Member has asked for my opinion. If he asks for facts, I will give them to him.

Mr. Stanley: Does that mean that when a publication has been banned by a Government and it includes a number of contributions from the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman himself has made no inquiries from the Governor and has not asked him the reasons for banning it or what was the nature of the particular article of which he disapproved?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The question of banning any periodical is in the absolute discretion of the Governor and it is not part of our duty to contest his ruling, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well.

Mr. Stanley: I did not ask the hon. Gentleman whether he contested the ruling, but whether his right hon. Friend had ever asked the Governor his reasons for banning the publication and what were the particular items to which he took exception?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That question does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Stanley: With great respect, it seems to arise absolutely directly. Is the hon. Gentleman unable, or unwilling, to answer the question?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not prepared an answer without notice.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister realise that there is a strange contrast between the banning of this paper in one place while Communist literature is still allowed to circulate in another place? Does he think it is more dangerous than in another place? Can he say if there is any other area in which "Labour Monthly" is banned?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I think the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) ought to know better—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I mean that and the right hon. Gentleman knows that what I say is perfectly true. When more and more self-government is given to Colonies they must have a lot of these detailed decisions in their own hands. We cannot have self-government, on the one hand, and interference from Whitehall in every little detail, on the other.

Mr. Stanley: Does that diatribe mean that the Secretary of State for the Colonies

never asked the Governor what were his reasons for banning this publication?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have already said that the right hon. Gentleman had better put that question down and he will get an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. Teeling: asked the Lord President of the Council what arrangements are being made to house visitors to London for the 1951 Festival; and whether in view of the fact that Brighton is being used already this year as an alternative hotel centre for those unable to obtain London accommodation, he will consider the use of it as such in 1951.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 11th July to my hon. Friend, the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). I would certainly hope that Brighton, as well as other places on the coast, and inland towns with reasonable transport facilities for London, will help towards accommodating visitors in 1951.

Mr. Teeling: In these circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman keep in touch with the Transport Commission if there is to be a special railway station and see that those towns which have a quick service to London will be able to divert trains to the Festival itself?

Mr. Bottomley: All these matters are being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Atomic Bomb (Expenditure)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence in view of mutual obligations under the Atlantic Pact, what further expenditure it is proposed to incur on the atomic bomb.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have nothing to add to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. G. Jeger), on 12th May, 1948, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister in advance for the copy of the reply I am to have, may I ask him if he is aware that since 17th May the Chancellor of the Exchequer has issued an appeal to all Departments to reduce Government expenditure, and as an atom bomb is unnecessary for the welfare of this country, will he start by reducing this expenditure?

Agricultural Leave

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Defence if he will re-introduce the system of 28 days' agricultural leave for men of the three Services serving in the United Kingdom, to enable farmers whose labour resources are otherwise inadequate, to apply, in cases verified by the agricultural executive committee concerned, for the assistance of specified individuals for this year's harvest.

Mr. Alexander: The scheme to which the hon. Member refers applied to agricultural workers called up for service and there are no longer any such men in the Forces; those called up during the war have been released and since then the call-up of agricultural workers has been suspended. As in the past, however, instructions have been issued which will ensure that the Forces give farmers all possible help, so far as Service commitments allow, with this year's harvest. Arrangements will be made through the local Service commanders and county agricultural executive committees.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does that mean that if a named individual, who could be accommodated on a farm in an area in which he normally lives, applies for leave to help with the harvest, and the case is verified by the agricultural executive committee, that individual would not get leave?

Mr. Alexander: I did not say that. I cannot judge individual oases. They would have to be considered by their commanding officers in relation to what I have said in my answer.

National Health Service

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Defence (1) why Service doctors at stations in Great Britain and Northern Ireland are not allowed to prescribe for wives and families of Service

personnel registered with them on National Health Service forms, so that their patients may be able to obtain necessary medicines from local chemists free of charge instead of having to buy them when they are not available at the station dispensary;
(2) whether he will arrange for. Service doctors at stations in Great Britain and Northern Ireland with whom the wives and families of serving personnel are registered for health service purposes to be registered as medical practitioners with the appropriate Executive Council in respect of such patients.

Mr. Alexander: The participation of Service medical officers in the National Health Service would not be feasible, since the resulting division of responsibility would be bound to give rise both to administrative and disciplinary difficulties. They cannot, therefore, issue prescriptions on National Health Service forms. There is, however, no reason why dependants of Servicemen should have to pay for medicines prescribed by Service doctors, since the Service Departments themselves meet the cost if such medicines cannot be supplied by a Service dispensary. If the hon. Member will let me have details of any case in which this practice has not been followed I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Macpherson: Does the reply of the Minister of Defence mean that there is an undertaking on his part to meet the costs of medicaments that have been prescribed in all cases?

Mr. Alexander: Where they cannot be obtained from the Service dispensary.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

District Livestock Inspectors

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Food whether he will state the duties and areas of the 24 pensionable posts of district livestock inspectors, male, advertised in the "Farmers' Weekly" of 8th July, 1949.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The duties will consist, as they do at present, of supervising the grading panels which classify fat stock. The areas will remain unchanged.

Mr. York: Could the right hon. Lady explain why it is that special officers are required to supervise grading?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is displaying an ignorance of the subject. He will remember that these officers were first employed by the Livestock Commission long before the war, and that all we are doing now is to establish 24 of the 36 temporary inspectors.

Sweets Rationing

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food whether on the resumption of sweets rationing, credit will be allowed to retailers for points lodged at food offices when rationing ceased.

Dr. Summerskill: By agreement with the trade, credit will be based on the coupons lodged at food offices during the eight weeks ended 26th March.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the reply of my right hon. Friend—which will be greatly welcomed by small retailers—mean that the mis-allocation of supplies while derationing was in force will not penalise the small traders for months afterwards because the larger shopkeepers are holding back mis-allocated supplies with a view to obtaining coupons or points in the first rationing period?

Dr. Summerskill: No, I think the trade agrees that they will be treated fairly. The credit will be based on the credit which traders had during the two periods preceding the period at the end of which derationing took place, plus 50 per cent. of that credit. This will enable them to build up their stocks.

Cornish Early Potatoes

Mr. McKie: asked the Minister of Food the financial loss resulting from the Government agreement to buy Cornish early potatoes.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) on 18th July, which related to the Cornish crop.

Mr. McKie: While thanking the right hon. Lady for the information she has given in that reply, may I ask her if she is aware that this disastrous agreement completely dislocated the early potato market in Scotland and having regard

to the loss the Government sustained, will she give an assurance that no such agreement will be entered into again?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. He must make some more inquiries into this question in Scotland. He knows I would never mislead him. He will discover that the Cornish potatoes were disposed of by 13th June and that the Scottish "earlies" did not come into the market until after that date.

Mr. McKie: Is the right hon. Lady aware that those facts are not quite true? There was considerable dislocation. I hope she will take that from me in the same spirit.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the farmers of Lincolnshire have made similar protests about these Cornish potatoes, and would she look into the question and give them the answer for which they have asked?

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down. This concerns Scotland.

Commander Agnew: Is it not a fact that the potatoes of Cornwall left the county in admirable condition, and that it was only due to the delays occasioned by the mismanagement of the Ministry of Food that many hundreds of tons of them languished in British railway wagons instead of reaching the housewife?

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not on a parallel with agriculture?

Mr. Dye: In view of the nature of the particular crop of new potatoes, would it not be better to leave it for another year entirely to the producers and the trade to distribute them, rather than to carry on with the present guarantee?

Hon. Members: Come over here.

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid I cannot always take the advice of my hon. Friend.

Frozen Fish (Price)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food what contracts he has entered into with Iceland for the supply of frozen cod for delivery to the United Kingdom, giving the period and the prices arranged.

Dr. Summerskill: Under a contract with the Icelandic Government made in April, 1949, we have agreed to buy 10,000 tons of cod fillets and 4,500 tons of other varieties of frozen white fish for delivery between April and the end of this year. It would not be in the public interest to state the prices paid.

Mr. Shepherd: As this country is practically the only one concerned in the supply of frozen fish to this country, what conceivable reason can there be for withholding the price? If the right hon. Lady will not tell us the price, is she prepared to say that the price is no higher than the maximum controlled price for fresh fish landed in this country?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about this trade, should know that we get frozen fish also from Denmark. That is one reason why we do not wish to disclose the price.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend say whether this was the "cod" which was on sale at Wolverhampton last Saturday?

Mr. Shepherd: Would the right hon. Lady answer the second part of my question, which was whether she would give an undertaking that the price paid is not higher than the maximum price for fresh fish of a similar kind landed in this country?

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid I cannot give that undertaking.

Mr. Keeling: Remembering the cod we had from Iceland during the war, would the Ministry of Food give an assurance that this new Icelandic cod will taste less like dishcloth?

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food what price is guaranteed to British producers of frozen cod.

Dr. Summerskill: British producers of quick frozen cod and other white fish buy and sell at market prices, subject to the provisions of the Fish Maximum Prices Order, and there is no guaranteed price. We assist quick freezers by payment of storage and certain transport charges and by a direct contribution to their operating costs.

Mr. Shepherd: If my assumption is right that the right hon. Lady is paying Iceland higher prices than the price of

fresh landed fish, on what principle does she guarantee to a foreign country a price which she refuses to guarantee to a British producer?

Dr. Summerskill: It is a little difficult to make any contract with a foreign country unless we specify the price. The hon. Gentleman will know, if he reads my answer, that we are being very generous to this quite new industry. Surely he is not asking for more control?

Mr. Shepherd: Whatever justification there may have been for this exceptional contract, will the right hon. Lady give the House an assurance that she will not give to a foreign producer a higher price than is guaranteed to any British producer of a similar product.

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot give any assurance.

Imported Fruit and Fruit Syrup

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Food if his attention has been drawn to the information provided by the St. Faiths and Aylsham Rural District Council in Norfolk that certain fruit and fruit syrup imported from China and bottled in this country does not appear to comply with the standards of food hygiene laid down by his Department; if he has evidence of other importations of this character; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, and I have inquired into this case. Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that hygienic conditions are observed in food factories and the Medical Officer of Health of this district in which the factory is situated has ascertained that this bottled fruit is no longer being produced. The fruit and syrup from which it was made were imported privately and not by my Department. There are other small imports from time to time, but I have had no other complaints and I am satisfied that the local authority is taking necessary action to improve conditions at the factory.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP RATION (APARTMENT HOUSES)

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Food when he proposes to increase the ration of soap for keepers of apartment houses who do not have a catering licence.

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid we cannot allow a special ration of soap for such apartment houses. The proprietors should make their own arrangements with their guests for soap in the same way as for other rationed commodities.

Mr. Low: Surely, the right hon. Lady knows that those arrangements are very difficult to make and that there is a very good case for a slight increase in the soap ration; and would she not look at this matter again and, perhaps, in the course of the next week or two do something to help the keepers of apartment houses?

Dr. Summerskill: I am surprised to hear the hon. Member say that. Surely he must realise that these boarding house proprietors have no greater difficulty in making the ration go round than the ordinary domestic consumer.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL MONTH, LONDON

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. W. R. WILLIAMS:

71. To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a report on Colonial Month in London which has come to an end.

Mr. Williams: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would be good enough to allow me to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to reply to Question No. 71, which has not been reached but which seems to me to be rather an important one. My reason for asking is that I understand that the exhibition is coming to an end, and many of us feel that it should not do so.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is out of Order. If the Minister chooses to answer the Question off his own bat, well and good, but I cannot ask him to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — H.M.S. "THESEUS" (LOSS OF CUTTER)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. J. P. L. THOMAS:

86. To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now

able to make a further statement about the loss of the cutter from H.M.S. "Theseus."

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Dugdale): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I should like to answer Question No. 86.
As the House will be aware, a motor cutter from H.M.S. "Theseus" sank on the afternoon of 6th June last at Invergordon with the loss of one midshipman and three ratings. All the circumstances of this disaster have now been thoroughly investigated by two Boards of Inquiry and it has been possible to raise the cutter for examination.
The immediate cause of the accident appears to have been the shipping of a considerable amount of water forward when the cutter got into shallower water, which brought the bows down and allowed the seas to break inboard, thus rendering the boat unmanageable and causing her to sink. She was found to be properly equipped with gear, the crew were wearing life-belts and none was wearing sea-boots. In the difficult conditions then prevailing, which involved a search on a lee-shore during a gale, my noble Friend considers that everything practicable was done in an attempt to rescue the men.
He is also satisfied that the midshipman in charge of the boat was in every respect a proper person to undertake this responsibility, and that he handled the boat in a seamanlike manner and displayed calm and decisive leadership. My noble Friend is, however, still considering what degree of blame should be attributed to other officers who were concerned with the movements of the boat, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this point.
I am sure the House will realise that the precautions necessary for the safety of ships and vessels at sea in relation to prevailing weather conditions are not easy to decide and that every care must be taken in arriving at a correct judgment of the degree of blame. In conclusion, I should like to express once again the deep sympathy of the Board of Admiralty with the relatives of those who lost their lives.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Are not these cutters designed for service in rough sea, and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that they are really satisfactory for such service? The right hon. Gentleman said on 21st June that this cutter
appeared to ride comfortably into the sea …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1949; Vol. 466, c. 35.]
and that she could not be moored safely astern. Can the right hon. Gentleman state why the cutter could not be moored safely astern if she could ride comfortably into the sea?

Mr. Dugdale: With regard to the first part of that question, we are satisfied that this cutter, like other naval cutters, is of satisfactory construction. In fact, as I have said before, there are not many accidents occurring to these cutters, but naturally, we will take every precaution to see that cutters are built of a thoroughly satisfactory design, although we have no reason to suppose that present cutters are not so constructed.
In reply to the second part of the question, the point was that the admiral's barge was already tied up behind H.M.S. "Theseus" and it was impossible to tie up the cutter alongside at the same time because they would have swung round in the gale which there then was and would have crashed together. It was decided that in all the circumstances the risk of doing this was too great.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to issue an Admiralty Fleet Order about the use of these small boats so that every precaution may be taken to avoid these tragic occurrences in the future?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. We are considering issuing an Admiralty Fleet Order stating it is essential that commanding officers should not hesitate in taking precautionary measures to ensure the safety of boats, in spite of any inconvenience which may be caused by the suspension of boat traffic.

Commander Noble: In view of the fact that there have been two or three of these accidents in the last two or three years, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the greatest importance

is attached to training at sea for both officers and men?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I most certainly give that assurance.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Why could not one boat have been moored astern of the other, and then they could not have swung round and crashed?

Mr. Dugdale: Those who were there at the time decided that they would have swung round and collided with each other and that both boats probably would have been smashed. That was the decision of the people there.

Sir C. MacAndrew: Even if there was a strong wind blowing, if one boat was moored astern of the other, how could one of them have swung round and crashed into the other? It is quite nonsensical.

Mr. Dugdale: There was also a very strong tide, and it was swinging them round.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: When the matter has been further considered, will the right hon. Gentleman give further information as to the result of the decision which has been reached?

Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly be willing to give the House further information, but the reason I have made this statement today is that the House is rising shortly and my noble Friend will probably be in a position to decide finally long before the House meets again. That decision will then, presumably, have to be made known to those whom it concerns. If information is wanted later, naturally I shall be only too glad to give it when the House meets.

Mr. Gammans: If the right hon. Gentleman is giving the statement because the House is about to rise, why is he not also making a statement today about H.M.S. "Amethyst" on the Yangtse?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question. Question No. 86 dealt only with H.M.S. "Theseus."

BILL PRESENTED

COAL INDUSTRY (No. 2) BILL

"to provide for the making to colliery concerns and subsidiaries of such concerns of further income payments for the period between the primary vesting date and the date on which compensation under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, in respect of transfers of transferred interests of the concerns and subsidiaries is satisfied in full, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Gaitskell; supported by Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. Robens; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 185.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 26th July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 95.

Division No. 244.]
AYES
[3.42 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Delargy, H. J.
Lavers, S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Dugdale, J, (W. Bromwich)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dye, S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lindgren, G. S.


Attewell, H. C.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lipson, D. L.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Logan, D. G.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Longden, F.


Bacon, Miss A.
Ewart R.
Lyne, A. W.


Balfour, A.
Farthing, W. J.
McAdam, W.


Barstow, P. G.
Fernyhough, E.
McEntee, V. La T.


Barton, C.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington E.)
Mack, J. D.


Battley, J. R.
Follick, M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Forman, J. C.
McKinlay, A. S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Benson, G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McLeavy, F.


Berry, H.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)


Beswick, F.
Gibson, C. W.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Bing, G. H. C.
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Binns, J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Gooch, E, G.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Blyton, W. R.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bottomley, A. G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mikardo, Ian


Bowen, R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bramall, C. A.
Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Grierson, E.
Moody, A. S.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Burden, T. W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Burke, W. A.
Hamilton, Lt.-Col R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)


Callaghan, James
Hardy, E. A.
Mort, D. L.


Champion, A. J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moyle, A.


Chater, D.
Herbison, Miss M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N)


Cluse, W. S.
Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Cobb, F. A.
Holmes H. E. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Cooks, F. S.
Houghton, Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Collindridge, F.
Hoy, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Collins, V. J.
Hubbard, T.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pannell, T. C.


Cook, T. F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.


Cooper, G.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Pearson, A.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Piratin, P.


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Janner, B.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Daggar, G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Daines, P.
Jenkins, R. H.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Price, M. Philips


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kendall, W. D.
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kenyon, C.
Pryde, D. J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
King, E. M.
Ranger, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rankin, J.


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kirby, B. V.
Reeves, J.




Reid, T. (Swindon)
Steele, T.
Watson, W. M.


Richards, R.
Stokes, R. R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Weitzman, D.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Stross, Dr. B.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Stubbs, A. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)
Summerskill, Rt Hon. Edith
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Sylvester, G. O.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Royle, C.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wigg, George


Sharp, Granville
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Shurmer, P.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Skeffington, A. M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Skinnard, F. W.
Timmons, J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Titterington, M. F.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Tolley, L.
Wise, Major F. J.


Snow, J. W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wyatt, W.


Solley, L. J.
Walker, G. H.
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Sorensen, R. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Zilliacus, K.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)



Sparks, J. A.
Watkins, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Osborne, C.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot Univ.)
Hurd, A.
Peake, Rt. Hon O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Jennings, R.
Pickthorn, K.


Barlow, Sir J.
Keeling, E. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D.


Birch, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bower, N.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Scott, Lord W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cot. W.
Low, A. R. W.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carson, E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cole, T. L.
McFarlane, C. S.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Teeling, William


De la Bère, R.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Turton, R. H.


Duthie, W. S.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Sir R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
York, C.


Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.



Harden, J. R. E.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Head, Brig. A. H.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.


Hollis, M. C.
Odey, G. W.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [26th July]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1949–50; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1949–50.

Resolution reported:
That a sum, not exceeding £286,596,041 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with the Production of Groundnuts and with Agricultural Production and the Purchase of Feedingstuffs for the year ending on the 31st March, 1950, namely:

£


Class IX., Vote 2, Ministry of Food
239,580,863


Class II., Vote 9, Colonial Office
573,760


Class II., Vote II, West African Produce Control Board
4,000,010


Class VI., Vote 8, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
9,713,398


Class VI., Vote 9, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services)
32,728,010


Total
£286,596,041"

Resolution read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — EAST AFRICAN GROUNDNUTS SCHEME

3.48 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I beg to move, in Class IX, Vote 2, Ministry of Food, to leave out "£239,580,863," and to insert instead thereof "£239,579,863."
It has been decided to use part of today for a discussion of the East African groundnuts scheme. It is perhaps particularly appropriate that we should be discussing a matter such as this in the weather which we are enjoying at the present time. At all events, we have some slight idea as to the conditions in which the people on the spot are continually working. The House will recall that there have been several Debates on this subject during the last three years.
If I may be personal for a moment, I should like to say that my own interest in this subject is two-fold. I am slightly interested in British agriculture; I have some experience in tropical agriculture. Obviously I have no direct interest in the production of groundnuts, but because this scheme is rather a half-way house between the two, and as it is quite unique in its idea and conception, I studied it most carefully from its beginning following the Wakefield Report early in 1947. It will be remembered that the whole idea of this scheme was to produce large quantities of fats by mechanised methods in as short a time as possible in order to relieve the shortage in this country, and indeed the world shortage, of fats, which was very real at that time and is considerable today.
I have had the good fortune to visit East Africa twice since the scheme was started, the first time in February last year and again last month. In fact, I visited the estates just a few days before the Minister, and I had the pleasure of meeting him as he arrived and as I was leaving. I should like to thank the board of the Overseas Food Corporation for facilitating my visits to their properties, and also the staff, who made me so comfortable and gave me so much information at the places which I visited. Obviously they must have known that I might be rather critical in some ways, but they gave me every facility for seeing and finding out what I wanted.
I shall be most careful to endeavour to give accurately figures as they came to me, because there is no point in having any real difference on figures. The House will know that the greatest development has taken place on the Kongwa Estate which was started rather over two years ago. In order to allow the House to understand how little I know about this—or how much—I stayed three nights at Kongwa and I landed on the other estates, but only for a very short time. I know how dangerous it is to try and form conclusions during a very short visit, and it is only right that hon. Members should know the limitation of my experience and knowledge of that part of the world.
Before I describe what I saw and found there I should like to put right one thing which has entered into this controversy, I think entirely wrongly. The Minister


of Food and many hon. Members on the other side of the House consider, I think, that this has become a political issue. I deprecate that idea. If the Minister of Food would recall the Second Reading of the Overseas Resources Development Bill he will find it had a very kindly reception from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). In fact he said:
Here undoubtedly is a Measure on which it is possible for all sections of the House to unite. It is, at the same time, something which is constructive, which is designed to help our present economic position, and which is not of a party character."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th Nov., 1947; Vol. 443, c. 2035.]
That is very definite indeed, and I think it is advisable to point it out at the beginning of this Debate.
I studied the original White Paper, commonly known as the Wakefield Report, most carefully, because of my general interest in that type of thing. I came to the conclusion that while it was undoubtedly politically wise to try and develop the Colonies in every way of this sort, the figures in that report were quite impossible to accomplish or to work to. I had that opinion at the beginning and I have it today. Whether I shall be right in 10 or 20 years' time remains to be seen; the Minister may have caught up with his production figures; but it is most important to study that original White Paper. That was put before us and the Government adopted it.
It was like a prospectus. Many people have had experience of prospectuses, sometimes good or sometimes bad, but that was the Government prospectus of a new enterprise. I decided then that I would not like to become a voluntary subscriber to that prospectus, but fortunately or the reverse, the Minister has made us all subscribers through taxation. Very generally speaking, I thought then, and I think now, that if the costs in that White Paper had been doubled and the time element at every stage had been trebled, they would have been very much nearer the mark.
Let us see exactly what the scheme propounded and how it is going along. Hon. Members will remember that the idea was to clear the bush, to develop and plant up with groundnuts, but not entirely, Some 3¼ million acres over a period of six years at a cost of about

£25 million. It was estimated that they should begin gradually, work up to very high figures and then tail off again in the preparation of the land and the planting. The sowing time for groundnuts is about Christmas time and the raising time is about May or possibly June following. According to the original estimate they were to clear and plant in the Christmas season of 1947, 150,000 acres; in actual fact they have planted 7,300 acres. For the Christmas period of 1948 the estimate was 600,000 acres and they have planted about 50,000 acres. The original estimate for Christmas, 1949, was that they would plant about 1¼ million acres, and I think that it is fair to say that they will probably plant about 120,000 acres with crops of various kinds.
Let us consider the crops themselves. According to the Wakefield Report, the crop to be harvested in May, 1948, should have amounted to 56,000 tons. In point of fact it is very small indeed, probably just enough to supply the seed for the following year. The crop which has just been harvested, a month or two ago, should have amounted, according to the original estimate, to about a quarter of a million tons, whereas in fact it would amount to rather over 2,000 tons; and there will be a certain amount of sunflower in addition.
I wish briefly to describe some of the things which I saw at Kongwa where the development has gone ahead most quickly. They actually planted there some 50,000 acres last season, very approximately half with groundnuts and half with sunflower seed, and 2,000 acres of maize. The actual crop on hand this year of groundnuts will amount to round about 200 1b. per acre—it may be a little more or a little less, but round about that figure—compared with the estimate of 750 1b. per acre, so it was actually about a quarter of the crop.
In a Debate on this subject last March, the Minister told us that the crop would be small owing to the very severe drought in that part of the world this year. Apparently the drought was quite unprecedented. But we find mention in the Wakefield Report of droughts in Africa, and in this part, in previous years. In fact, the report mentions the years 1943 and 1944 as suffering from severe droughts indeed. The report says they


were supposed to be "the worst on record," but according to the Government figures of that year, the average crops amounted to some 615 1b. per acre, which is three times as much as the crop this year.
I suggest to the Minister that possibly one reason for the very small crop which has been garnered is that the machinery for getting it is not entirely suitable. I know that it is difficult to raise this crop mechanically, but I saw them lifting and combining it, and so far as one could see the machinery was not by any means suitable. I think that too many nuts were left on the ground.
As regards the town of Kongwa itself, I think I am right in saying that whereas three years ago there were no Europeans in the district, and very few natives, now it is the second largest town in Tanganyika. There are 1,300 Europeans and a great many natives. All the Europeans, of course, are employees of the Overseas Food Corporation and are working in the groundnuts scheme. Breaking down that figure, they amount to about 200 women, 200 children and 900 men. Of those 900 men some 350 are employed by what they call main contractors; those are the firms out there employed very largely for clearing the bush. Most of those 350 men will have moved on to another district or come home by Christmas, so that the number will diminish.
There are very large repair shops in which about 170 Europeans are employed. There are 50 storemen, and another 120 are occupied in the vast amount of administrative, hospital and sanitary work and in labour supervision. The headquarters staff for the whole scheme is also situated at Kongwa and that embraces about 100 people. It is interesting to see that the three large agricultural units at this place, which consists of about 30,000 acres each, require between 15 and 20 Europeans for supervision of the agricultural activities. Thus, only about 60 Europeans are employed on the agricultural side, compared with hundreds in the town. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there are far too many Europeans there.
In addition, there are about 11,000 natives, rather more than half of whom are skilled in some way. Many of them are becoming skilled or semi-skilled

mechanics. There is a fine hospital at Kongwa which has about 400 beds. On an average about 400 out-patients are given treatment every day. At the time of my visit there were 174 adults and 41 dependants in hospital. That gives some idea of the size of Kongwa and the services connected with it. Those working at the hospital are doing a fine job. As the fame of the hospital spreads, people are beginning to walk hundreds of miles to get treatment. It is not part and parcel of the job of the Corporation to provide this service, but doctors cannot refuse treatment to people badly needing it especially when they have walked for hundreds of miles to get to Kongwa.
The provision of adequate water presents a great problem. Apparently they built the town and then they looked for the water. The main part of the supply is 180,000 gallons a day from bore holes and the water is saline, brackish or not very good for various other reasons. Approximately 48,000 gallons of drinking water are required daily. That amount is transported by tanker lorry an average distance of 12 or 15 miles. In the district there are some 500 miles of dirt roads to enable communications to be kept up between the various parts of the large estate. These roads will carry four lines of traffic and, being dirt roads, they need continual repair. In Kongwa there are about 150 houses for European use. The rest of the people live in tents, and most of the offices are in tents.
There are about 400 bulldozers, a quarter of which have never been used because they have been cannibalised or because there were not sufficient spare parts or mechanics to put them in order. Most of these bulldozers came from the ends of the earth—often from the Pacific Islands—because they could not be secured elsewhere. The Corporation decided to use these machines rather than none at all. I am told that often they arrived on the estate full of sand and requiring an overhaul which it was most difficult to arrange in the circumstances prevailing. There are about 1,000 lorries, cars, jeeps, land rovers and tankers of various sorts. Without doubt a very large amount of transport is available there.
There is a large supply of agricultural machinery including a quantity of agricultural tractors and other equipment


required for working the land. It has transpired that some of the soil is of an abrasive character. The result is that implements are worn out very quickly. In those parts, disc ploughs are used instead of mould board ploughs. A large disc measures 32 inches in diameter, and in bad parts the soil will wear four inches off that disc when it used to plough 200 acres. That is a most severe depreciation.
At Urambo some 2,000 acres were planted last year and the crops were poor. A further 20,000 acres are ready to be planted this winter, and it is hoped in the next 12 months to clear a further 70,000 acres. At the Southern Province Estate, which most people told me will probably be by far the best and largest eventually, the work is in the very early stages. About 600 acres were planted experimentally last year. I am told that the crops were good, but I cannot say exactly what they were. An oil pipeline from the coast to the estate has been completed and it is said to be in working order. The railway has already reached Sixty-Mile Point which is about half way to the coast. It is hoped to have a sawmill in operation this winter and to make extensive use of the heavy timber which will be made available.
I ask hon. Members to consider the whole scheme, which was to cost £25 million. I am informed that it has already cost £25 million. The cost at present is approximately £1 million a month. The expenditure has exceeded expectations and the crop has disappointed expectations. I wonder whether the Minister or the Overseas Development Corporation has worked out an estimate of the cost for the next three years. If expenditure continues at the rate of £1 million a month, a very large amount of money will be lost in the next three years. It is obvious that the revenue from nuts and other seeds will gradually improve, but I do not believe that it will anything like meet that very great expenditure.
In a Debate in the spring the Minister of Food laid great stress on the fact that the price of groundnuts had increased very much indeed in the last three years and that at the time it was about £50 a ton. I agree with that, but I would point out that the cost of production had also increased very much indeed.

I suggest that if far higher prices had been offered to the native producers in West Africa the nuts would have been forthcoming much more quickly and much more cheaply. I understand that the actual producer in West Africa receives about £19 a ton, which is not a large figure. The difference in the price is made up by the costs and the profits made by the West African Control Board who buy and handle the commodity and sell it to the Ministry of Food.
I should also like to ask the Minister whether he can give any idea of the number of Canadian and United States dollars which have been spent on materials for the project. We know that a large number of bulldozers have been bought from America and a certain amount of agricultural machinery from Canada. I should like to know how many dollars have been spent on this during the last three years.
Another point mentioned by the Minister in his speech in the Spring referred to criticism of the scheme as a whole and the effect it had on the personnel in East Africa. During my last visit, I found much less grousing and far more contentment than I found 18 months earlier. Obviously, in a great new scheme of this kind there must be many difficulties, but I think that the position is improving. I think that perhaps the Minister was rather ungenerous when he referred to the
… unending series of attacks in which they
that is, the men in East Africa—
are told that all their efforts are useless, that the scheme is a total failure and that the whole thing is a wicked ramp."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1785.]
Perhaps it was ungenerous to say that at the time.
It seems to me that whereas this was originally a scheme to produce groundnuts cheaply with the secondary idea of developing the Colonies, the position has been completely reversed and it is now looked upon primarily as an experiment in Colonial development with the secondary idea of producing fats. I regard that as most important. Are we right in pouring millions into East Africa in this way? That is a matter for the people to judge for themselves, but I ask the Minister to tell us whether he looks upon this as a scheme for producing these groundnuts economically. In his speech in the last Debate which we had on this


matter, he said that he would approach it in a very hard-headed and business-like way. Does he still feel that? Does he still look upon this scheme as a method of relieving our fats shortage economically or not? We want to know exactly where we stand about this scheme.
Before leaving the question of the criticism of the personnel on the spot, I would say that many people who are doing very good work out there are very capable men in their own spheres, but there are many who are not very capable, and I imagine that they will naturally fall by the wayside in the course of time. It is very wrong, however, to criticise these men and damn the scheme and blame it all on them from here, when the real reason is nothing of the kind, but a matter of high policy for which the Minister is primarily responsible.
I was most interested when out there to hear the queries which everybody put to me concerning what was to be the result of the next General Election in this country. I told them, to the best of my knowledge, which was very little indeed. The second question invariably was, "What will happen to this scheme?" I said, "Obviously, if there is a change of Government and the present Opposition come in. I cannot answer for what the Conservatives will do. I can only say what my party would do." Obviously, when a great deal of money has been spent on this scheme, no right-thinking person would throw it away. It would have to be continued in some form or other; the policy might be changed, and there may be other alterations, but we cannot shut down a great scheme of this character because of a change of Government. I believe my Conservative friends probably think very much the same way, and though I cannot speak for them, I hope that somebody will speak for them authoritatively this evening.
This scheme needs serious overhauling and looking into. It was not, in the first place, the most economic method of producing fats. According to the original estimates, the production of oil per acre was to be about 350 1b. from groundnuts, and, from sunflower seeds, about 250 1b. per acre. If the Minister had cast his eyes in other directions, he might have looked into copra, which gives 10 cwt. of oil per acre, or oil palm, which very

often gives from one to two tons from the best varieties.
He might also have considered some special encouragement for the enlargement of our existing properties, from which he would have obtained much quicker and cheaper results. It is quite true that coconut trees take about four or five years to produce. The Minister may say that the period is seven years, but improvements have been made and it is now about four years. It is far more economical, and, as we shall see in the long run, infinitely quicker to produce fats by these other methods than by the production of groundnuts.
I am afraid I have spoken for a long time, but I appeal to the Minister to look at this scheme in a realistic way. It may be rather a pet theory of his, and he may have wanted to show what production can achieve by these methods. I can appreciate this point of view, although I do not agree with him, but it is far too big and too serious a matter to continue in that way. In the early stages it was largely dominated by ex-Service men, and now I am inclined to think that it is rather dominated by the Civil Service type. I may be wrong, but that is my own view. In any case, there is great waste going on and it is not economical, and I therefore ask the Minister to review the whole position most carefully.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is my view, formed after a visit to Tanganyika and after a consistent and close study of the development of this scheme for mass producing groundnuts, that the Minister himself has proved the worst handicap to its success. It really is time that the Minister discharged himself from the post of public relations officer for the groundnuts scheme and behaved as a responsible Minister of the Crown. As a quick-time, margarine producing project, the groundnuts scheme is dead, and we are not likely to see in our lifetime the 600,000 tons of oil seeds or the extra 10¼ 1bs. of margarine per year for everyone in this country from this scheme.
I do not think it is necessary to hold a detailed post-mortem on the scheme,


because not even another Socialist Government would repeat the folly of putting hundreds of bulldozers and other heavy machinery to beat down the African bush before they discovered what the rainfall was, what the soil would grow, whether it would grow a succession of crops and whether there were any—

The Minister of Food (Mr. John Strachey): Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? Surely, he is not suggesting that we have not discovered the rainfall? It is published in the Wakefield Report, and we must do justice to the authors of that report.

Mr. Hurd: I shall try to do justice, but I was misled by an answer which the Minister gave on that point a few weeks ago. It is true that some very sketchy rainfall figures were obtained, particularly for the Kongwa area, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inquire of those who kept these records, because I think he will find that the job was not taken very seriously, and that sometimes the record was taken on Christmas Day and that had to suffice for a long period. I do not think there were any reliable rainfall records at all, but, if there were, the Minister's fault in leading his Cabinet colleagues into accepting this project is all the greater. I cannot believe that the Minister and his colleagues really knew what the conditions were.
We must also agree that a few pilot schemes and the practical caution which any individual or private company would take in order to safeguard its funds would have saved the British taxpayer many millions of pounds. We should have found out which were the right areas to develop and the crops which could be grown before we had battered ourselves so expensively against the thorn at Kongwa, which now appears to be the least promising area. The land of promise is now in the southern area, where there is a land of bananas, a land flowing with milk and honey, according to the Minister. I hope he is right, but I would ask him to tell us quite frankly whether he or the Government have any clear idea about the future use of the land which they have cleared in Tanganyika. It has been done at great expense, and we have extended the railways, provided some hard roads and built a lot of houses.
I put this point to the Minister. It is the feeling, not only among hon. Members of this House but among the general public, that we cannot place any faith in the advice of the Overseas Food Corporation itself. The Minister made the initial mistake of appointing a friend of his to be the chairman—Mr. Plummer, who is now dignified by a knighthood—and I think the Minister's other appointments to the board have given the Corporation an ill-assorted team. I do not like saying this because some members of the Corporation are friends of mine and I have known them for many years. They have admirable individual qualities, but they have not the qualities needed to run a show of this kind. They have one quality in common, which is that none of them, so far as I know, has any practical experience of commercial agriculture in the tropics. I just cannot believe that in the present Overseas Food Corporation we have a working team capable, by distant control from London, of making a success of this scheme in Tanganyika.
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend when he says that we cannot afford to go on pouring £1 million a month into this scheme. Already, every man, woman and child in the country has 10s. invested in the scheme, and we are putting in another £1 million a month. I am sure it is common sense now to call a halt to any further clearing and to the starting of further road and railway making until Parliament has some reliable guidance on the best way of turning to account what we have already spent in human effort and material resources in connection with the development of the scheme up to its present stage. I pay the highest tribute to the men on the spot. I found them fine fellows; they had their hearts in the right place, and wanted to make a success of the job.
Will the Minister tell us quite frankly whether he now sees this scheme as a general farming scheme, with groundnuts as just one of the crops in rotation? If that is so, would it not be better business to turn the scheme over to the Colonial Development Corporation under the Colonial Office? This Corporation seems to have wider terms of reference than the Overseas Food Corporation, and the Colonial Development Corporation is already running a groundnuts scheme in


North Nigeria. Their scheme is one which appeals to me more than the idea of mechanised mass production of groundnuts. They are creating holdings of 30 acres to be worked by the Africans themselves, of which 10 acres will be groundnuts, 10 acres cereals and 10 acres fallow. They are encouraging peasant cultivation and helping the peasants by the use of good husbandry and fertilisers to get high yields. The yields in West Africa are considerably higher than even the Minister has projected for his scheme in Tanganyika. Such holdings represent one likely long-term solution to this problem and are preferable to any further extension of mass production methods.
I am sure that for the sake of our good name in Africa and for the sake of our purse here we must take this Tanganyika scheme away from the Minister of Food. I know that the Minister has tried very hard to make a success of it, but he has set about it in the wrong way and with the wrong mentality. It is because I think that we must take the scheme away from him that I second the Amendment.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: The speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) has encouraged me to reply to one or two of the points he made. I was told the other day by an official of the Overseas Food Corporation that after each of our Debates in this House they expect to receive a considerable number of letters from Englishmen who had applied for jobs cancelling their applications owing to the statements and allegations made by the Opposition. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) made a speech which was completely responsible, and which would not have had that result in any way. But I must say that the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury was precisely what was expected.
It is surely worth thinking over, that with regard to a scheme of this sort it is of some importance that speeches should not be made here which make it more difficult than ever to recruit men for the job, in the same way that newspaper articles containing wild allegations against the scheme should not be written. It will not greatly encourage the people visited by the hon. Member for Eddisbury to hear that things are so desperate that

the scheme may be taken away from the Minister of Food, and that road and railway development will have to be stopped altogether.

Mr. Hurd: I said that the starting of any further road or railway development should be stopped, but not the completion of work already started.

Mr. Crossman: If the news reaches Africa that things are so desperate as to stop further development in this way, it is not going to help the morale of the people concerned which the hon. Member for Eddisbury was so keen to maintain.

Earl Winterton: From the point of view of the House of Commons, will the hon. Gentleman enunciate a little further the remarkable doctrine he has put forward? Is it his view that it is not the duty of hon. Members to make criticisms when they think it necessary so to do, for fear of causing trouble outside; and, if so, why does he make speeches, as he constantly does, about the Americans?

Mr. Crossman: I think the noble Lord has made a perfectly fair point, that every hon. Member of this House has very considerable difficulty. He has to make his criticisms forcibly and he has to consider the effect outside. I was only suggesting that the effect outside will be very grave and that the hon. Member for Newbury must feel that things are very desperate if he is to be justified in creating that effect on the morale of the people working out there.
The second point is that he talked a great deal about the starry-eyed prospectuses which have not come true, and about the millions of pounds of money lost. I think it is worth remembering about colonial development schemes, whether of private or public enterprise, that very rarely in Africa has much money been made before a great deal has been lost. A great number of people who invested in original schemes in Africa lost their money, and then, after a long time, money was made. I cannot think of a single area where there have not had to be experiments which failed, and where mistakes had not to be made. The original investors have usually lost their money.
If we are going to have a scheme of this sort in the centre of Africa, it is totally impossible to make accurate estimates in advance. At least we can say that the Government took the advice of the largest private enterprise corporation on the spot and that this prospectus, which is regarded as so starry-eyed, was prepared in part by a man who came from Unilever itself. If private enterprise has been at fault, that is not something which the Opposition should be so proud to expose. After all, who wrote that report, who were the men? The leading member of the mission was a man from Unilever. There was also a Colonial Office official and a banker, but a man from Unilever was the man on the spot who apparently made the "idiotic and stupid mistakes"—to use the words of the hon. Member opposite—which were unforgivable. Were those mistakes so unforgivable? Were they wrong to believe that there is a chance of pulling off this job?

Sir J. Barlow: The representative from Unilever had no experience at all in the mechanised production of groundnuts. His whole experience was in West Africa with regard to entirely different products, and, further, the expert advice was from Mr. Wakefield who had been, I believe, agricultural adviser in Tanganyika for 15 years.

Mr. Crossman: I think the hon. Gentleman is correct. In fact, I doubt whether anybody has had much experience of the mechanised production of groundnuts. This is an experiment in producing groundnuts. If we are going to make  experiment we must face the fact that in early years money may be lost. That has always been so in the past. Hon. Members opposite believe in enterprise; that means taking risks; so they must be prepared to concede that the risks will on occasions involve losses of money in the short run. It is unreasonable to say that because losses have been made and expectations have not been arrived at, we should stop the scheme and sack the Minister of Food.

Mr. Gammans: If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, this scheme was entered into with neither the Government nor anyone else knowing anything about it, would he not agree that it would have

been wise to have had a few pilot schemes instead of plunging in to the tune of £25 million?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman knows that I did not say the scheme was entered into without anyone knowing anything about it. I said that the experts were selected from private enterprise and they knew as much as anyone did. All the available information was collected. But anybody who knows anything about schemes of this sort will admit that in the initial stages there will not be 100 per cent. success, but that very often there will be a large percentage of failure. It is unfair and unreasonable for hon. Members opposite to condemn it out of hand because those inevitable failures have occurred.
My second point is this. This scheme is not only of interest to this country; it is of interest to the whole world and particularly nations with colonies. Hon. Members opposite may want to wipe the scheme off, but officials from the French and Belgian Governments, as well as South Africa, are going out to see this scheme and they regard it with the keenest interest, because everybody concerned with Africa is deeply concerned for the success of this scheme. I suspect that our foreign observers are showing a rather more objective and long-term attitude to this scheme than some hon. Members opposite.
I only hope that there are not any interests concerned which create this malice in the Opposition. It is well known that the sisal growers in Tanganyika are not fond of the diamond industry or of this scheme because the native wage is being increased in Tanganyika by those two new industries. I hope no hon. Member opposite is influenced by the fact that the sisal growers do not like to see the Africans getting more money than they got when there was nothing but sisal produced.

Mr. Hurd: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) or myself have any financial interests or any other interests in sisal or any other industry in Africa?

Mr. Crossman: I was expressing a hope that no hon. Member opposite or anybody who spoke on this scheme, has such an interest.
My third point is this. I would say to hon. Members opposite that we must all hope for large-scale American investment in Africa, but it is perfectly clear that no American private enterprise is prepared to go and do the sort of job which has to be done in the initial stages. They go to Washington and say that they want 100 per cent. security. If they were given 100 per cent. security they might undertake to do something. In the meantime Governments have to take the risks which free enterprise refuses to take.

Mr. Osborne: Surely the money is being found largely by the American taxpayer without whose aid this Government could not carry on?

Mr. Crossman: That is the very point that I was trying to make. The American Government are lending money to us and our Government are undertaking the scheme because no private enterprise is prepared to take the risks involved in such schemes in Central Africa. Where private enterprise will not be experimental and will not take risks in this initial development work, the Government have to undertake it.

Earl Winterton: I am not very interested in groundnuts, but I have been a landowner in Africa for 40 years. If I may say so without wishing to be offensive, the hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. If it had not been for private enterprise there would be no ranching industry in Africa today. It does not mean, because private enterprise has not gone in for this scheme, that the scheme is feasible. Private enterprise is not so foolish as to do something which cannot be done.

Mr. Crossman: We have now had a clear statement from the noble Lord. He asserts that the scheme is unfeasible. Is that his point?

Earl Winterton: That is so, from my own knowledge.

Mr. Crossman: We now have an admission from the Opposition Front Bench that they want the scheme stopped. If a Conservative Government get in, they will stop the scheme altogether because they consider it totally unfeasible. How right was the alarm shown by the employees of the Corporation! The Conservatives are not just wondering whether to go forward; they have decided to close it down altogether.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman, who knows nothing whatever about Africa, is attempting to suggest, as I understand his argument—and it is a very interesting Socialist argument—that if any expert makes up his mind that a scheme is unfeasible, then notwithstanding that it is unfeasible, because it is run by the Socialist Party it must be continued. No wonder this country is in such a calamitous state.

Mr. Crossman: The noble Lord expressed his view on the scheme—[Interruption]. The noble Lord should at least have the courtesy to listen. Perhaps he can listen without muttering. The noble Lord said that the scheme is totally unfeasible. That must mean, if the noble Lord is responsible for his words, that if he were in a position to govern this country, he would close down the scheme altogether.

Earl Winterton: Thank heaven I am not in a position to govern this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If I were, I would not make such a muddle of it as the hon. Gentleman's friends.

Mr. Crossman: It is now quite clear that the noble Lord is trying to withdraw from the statement, because it would embarrass the Opposition.

Earl Winterton: The only thing which embarrasses the Opposition is the Socialist Party.

Mr. Crossman: We shall now return, despite the noble Lord, to the subject of American capital. Apart from Liberia, and the Cameroons where the United Fruit Company is doing some development in conjunction with the Colonial Office, I know of no efforts by American capital to engage in development of Africa. The suggestion that American capital is waiting to go into Africa and develop it is surely not true. If it were true, Mr. Truman would not be so concerned about his fourth point, to encourage American capital to go overseas. Our capital was squandered at a time when it should have been put into development, and American capital, which had its fingers burned during the war, is profoundly reluctant to go to Africa, let alone Europe. If American capital will not undertake the risk, public money must be used; public men must


experiment and take risks and take the blame which is involved in taking risks, as well as taking the failures and the losses which are inevitable, because there is no other way of producing the fundamental change in Africa which has got to be produced if white and black are to live there together in the next 100 years.
The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment made, I thought, a very false distinction between a scheme designed to produce groundnuts and a scheme for African development. He asked, which was it—whether it was a scheme for producing groundnuts or for helping the Africans? The hon. Gentleman, as a business man, should know that in his own business life it is not fair to say, even to a Conservative business man, "Are you there to make profits or to serve the country?" It is not fair to go to the L.P.T.B. and say, "Are you there to make profits or to provide an efficient transport service?" What is unfair when put to such people is equally unfair when put to the Government Front Bench. In reply to this question, "Is this a business job or is it concerned with African development," the answer is that, of course, it has got to be both.
No one ever suggested from this side at the beginning that it was predominantly a business job to get groundnuts and that the Africans came a bad second. Everybody on this side knows that we cannot get the groundnuts unless the Africans are given a chance. Whereas the normal business in this country need only build its factories and get its labour and then takes its profits, in Africa it is necessary to build hospitals, roads, schools, railways and ports. All those things are the overheads of this business before any profit can be made. That is why it is impossible to have any normal profit calculation with regard to what is a gigantic pilot plant, a great experiment in production in Africa. They have to build their roads, their railways, their schools; they have to build everything which is taken for granted by the profit-making business man in this country. That is yet another reason why private enterprise—and I do not blame them—cannot be expected to jump in here and do this job. It is a job which has to be done on public money.
In conclusion, the Conservative Party, which says it believes at heart in the Commonwealth, which says it believes in building up the Empire, should realise that upon the success or failure of this scheme, whether they like the scheme or not, depends very largely whether American capital comes into Africa. If this scheme succeeds we may be able to persuade some to come in. If, as hon. Gentlemen opposite so much hope, the scheme is a failure or if, as the noble Lord has already said, the scheme is nonsense from the start; it will not come in. If the scheme is a sensational failure, I am quite sure there will not be any American capital coming in, for a sensational failure of that sort with public money will hardly encourage the American capitalists to invest.
I would appeal to the noble Lord, although he is difficult to appeal to, to put his personal rancour behind him and to regard this matter as a matter of national, of African and of Anglo-American importance, and to try to help the scheme instead of stating as a Front Bench Member, that he knew the scheme was totally unfeasible, and that, speaking from the Front Bench, he is prepared to advise its immediate stoppage despite all the disastrous consequences.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am delighted to have the chance of following the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman), after having listened to a speech which was quite despicable in the circumstances in which it was made. I cannot speak for American capital and I do not know whether the hon. Member for East Coventry can, but if he wants to know why American capital is not attracted to this country, I suggest that he roads the speech of Lord Brand in another place only a couple of days ago. The reason why American capital was not attracted into the sterling area was given, and the reason it does not go to Africa is exactly the same as the reason why it does not go to other parts of the sterling area.
I resent very strongly his insinuation that anyone who attends these Debates and has any personal interest whatever should be precluded from speaking in them. I have often informed the House of my interest as a primary producer in


Africa. For this I make no apology. One of the troubles with the Government, as the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards), I think it was, said after being de-nazified at the Scarborough Conference last year, is that they have not a single member who has ever earned his living managing a business.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I happen to be one of those who has earned his living by managing a very considerable business.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I suggest the right hon. Gentleman should tell that to the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough and explain it to him rather more carefully, because he has a longer and closer association with the hon. Member than I have. When hon. Members of this House, who have a practical interest of any sort, try to find out what are the facts of any matter, instead of dealing in the realms of make-believe into which the hon. Member for East Coventry often goes, it is ridiculous to suggest that they should be precluded from taking part in the Debate.
To suggest that such hon. Members are merely activated by sordid self-interest and in this instance are trying to stop this scheme because they want to keep down wages, is about on the level of the Deputy Chief Patronage Secretary going round saying that we on this side of the House wish to create unemployment in order to solve our economic problems. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I see that hon. Members opposite join him, which shows the depths to which they are descending in their political propaganda. I do not want to take up much more of the time of the House on this point, but it is quite characteristic of the defence which is being put up by hon. Members opposite, that they should try to blame Unilevers, and private enterprise, for it all. They always like to find a scapegoat and never admit that they themselves are wrong. They try to find somebody else to blame. They blame it all on their political opponents.
I should like also to point out that the remark made by the hon. Member for East Coventry that, in private companies in Africa, very much more money was lost before money was made—

or at any rate that a great deal of money was lost—is very different from the story one used to hear in the past about "exploitation" and the vast wealth made by these companies. I had the privilege of serving for 10 years in Africa before the war and, having been subject to the constant stream of vitriol from the Fabian Socialists in those days, I will only say that that is the sort of fabrication which hon. Members opposite, who are now responsible for the government of those territories, ought by this time to have brought to an end. If the hon. Member accuses us of discouraging recruitment for this groundnut scheme, I would point out that he and his friends have been trying for years to discourage recruitment to those services in which many spend their lives, and in many cases give their lives, in the service of our overseas territories, and I suggest it is about time that he stopped talking on those lines.
To come more immediately to the Motion which is before the House. I am staggered that the Minister of Food, after having spent quite a lot of the taxpayers' money and even more of other people's time in East Africa, has not taken this opportunity of coming before the House and making a proper statement on the result of his trip over there and of the future so that we might then ask him questions. There has been reference to commercial parallels and it appears to me, if one could draw a parallel, that this is the annual general meeting in which the Minister of Food is the chairman. It is rather like as if he had taken a room for the annual general meeting and for 50 minutes there was a discussion on things generally without a chairman's statement, but that in the last ten minutes he was prepared to answer questions. We are waiting to know from the Minister what is happening and we have had no statement.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member seems to be unaware that I made a statement in this House some ten days ago. In fact, the House complained that it was too long.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Minster has not taken the chance to endeavour to make a full and proper statement in a Debate of this sort. To continue the commercial argument, one cannot help thinking what


would have happened if the ordinary processes of economic laws and other laws had applied to the Minister of Food, because by this time not only would he have been in Carey Street but it is also a question whether he would not have been in Bow Street as well for issuing a false prospectus. I do not know, but at least it is a point for argument amongst the hon. and learned Members of this House.
I do not want to take up too much time of the House on personal matters, but I want to tell the Minister that it was not unamusing to many of us interested in these affairs when the right hon. Gentleman at Kongwa, apparently in trying to raise morale, started by saying something about the Conservative Party, suggesting that they will soon be putting right the misdirection which has been going on out there. At any rate, that was the implication of what he said although I have not seen a very full report.

Mr. Strachey: Would the hon. Member repeat that remark?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The right hon. Gentleman issued a statement in which he said, more or less, that the Conservatives would soon be putting things right and would carry on this scheme. That was the implication.

Mr. Strachey: I must at once ask the hon. Member to withdraw that suggestion. I said nothing of the sort. I may be accused in some cases of being a bad prophet, but I would certainly never prophesy the success of the Conservatives at the next election. That would be a most improbable action on my part and a most improbable event.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I certainly accept that from the Minister as a fact, but I think that if he will look at what he said he will find that he purported to speak in some points on behalf of the Conservatives. I will look at the newspaper reports and send them to the right hon. Gentleman so that he may see for himself.

Mr. Strachey: I must ask the hon. Member to give some substantiation to this wild suggestion. It is perfectly true that I found in Kongwa the chief anxiety, which the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) mentioned, was what would happen to their jobs if the Conservative Party were ever to become

responsible for the Government of this country. All I said was that seemed to me to be a remote contingency, but I could not reassure them any further than that. A lot of people were anxious about their jobs if the Conservative Party ever became responsible for this country.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: If that is what the Minister says he said, I will leave it at that. We believe that we should get some indication in this Debate of the figures at which this scheme is now being operated and of the Minister's estimates of production for the future. I think the chairman of a board of a public company would be expected to have that sort of information by him.
I should also like to ask the Minister in connection with organisation, what, if anything, has been done, to find out from those with long experience in the Sudan about large-scale production. What use has been made of that experience, either in recruiting agricultural experts or it making use of some of the previous, officials there who have considerable and most valuable experience, I believe, in matters of labour and resettlement and so on. I believe that the question of over-urbanisation which has arisen there is quite likely to arise under these other large-scale schemes, and I should like to know if anything has been done to make use of those experts.
Now I come to tractors. I apologise to the House for putting these points disjointedly, but I think they ought to be put to the Minister. As to the product of heavy tractors, there was a scheme at one time, I understand, that an American heavy tractor could be built in this country under licence. That was changed, I understand, later to production of an all-British tractor. It does seem important at this juncture to get a proven article and better, perhaps, to have manufactured under licence, a heavy tractor. We should be grateful to the Minister if he would give us some indication of what is happening about that Time is important, and it takes time to develop new models. A third matter brought to my notice is the question of sunflowers. What is being done to get these fertilised? There is a need for fertilisation through bees, but it is difficult to keep bees there more than about two weeks at a time. I wonder what the Corporation is going to do about this.
It does appear to us that the emphasis in this scheme has been changed. From being a scheme for the production of oilseeds primarily for the benefit of this country it seems now to be a great experimental scheme in colonial development which we on this side of the House have always, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, supported. If it is the latter, if the emphasis is now on carrying out colonial development, we support it, but we think it should be handled by the Colonial Secretary and not by the Minister of Food, because a vast number of problems, such as those of labour relations and health, and so forth, affecting tens of thousands of people, will arise in connection with this scheme.
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the answer is to concentrate on such great developments as transport, ports, railways, roads, and to open up those territories, and then to encourage the existing methods of production, whether by private enterprise or through producer-co-operatives, or the individual farmers, so that the job of production may proceed. I believe that this should be done and can be done, leaving inside such overall developments, the present units of the schemes, either as pilot schemes or as going units.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: Everyone must have been struck by the new tone of this Debate on groundnuts as compared with that of earlier Debates. Previously, we found the Opposition coming in all cock-a-hoop and saying that this scheme was a complete failure. Today the tone is slightly different. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) were extremely annoyed for some reason by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). I am somewhat at a loss to understand why, because all that he said, in brief, was that this scheme had been launched, not on the advice of Government experts but on the advice of the experts of the United Africa Company; that American capital or British capital could not maintain this scheme with private enterprise prices; and that therefore, it must be done by the Government—a conclusion reached by the

company itself. Why the Opposition should be annoyed by that I do not know. I can only imagine that it was because of my hon. Friend's final word, that this scheme is in fact succeeding, and is going to be a success. That really is what is annoying the Opposition, because whatever may have been said by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow), there is no question at all that the Opposition have deliberately made this a political issue.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I think I may say, on behalf of everybody on this side, that if this venture turns out well for Africa and this country, we shall be very glad. It is only because we fear disaster that we put these criticisms.

Mr. Hynd: I am sure the hon. Member means that quite sincerely, but it is an entirely different thing from what was said by the noble Lord. In any case, I think even he, with all his sincerity, would admit, whatever may be the ultimate outcome of the scheme, the Conservative Party, particularly on the eve of a General Election, will certainly want to make as much political capital out of the difficulties as possible.

Mr. Baxter: No.

Mr. Hynd: That is a new political attitude, then. The hon. Member for Banbury was very concerned about the fact that we were blaming the United Africa Company. We have not blamed the United Africa Company, and I have not heard a single word on this side of the House to that effect. My hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry only reminded the House that the initiative in suggesting this scheme came from the company whose adviser was on the original commission, and that they, in fact, handled this scheme for about the first 12 months on behalf of the Overseas Food Corporation. He did not criticise them for that. The criticism and blame has all come from the other side of the House. They have attempted to cast blame on the Corporation. If they want to blame anybody, they should blame private enterprise, and not the Government.

Mr. Hurd: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the United Africa Company was acting directly as the agent of the


Minister of Food, and at his dictation very largely?

Mr. Hynd: Not at all. The chairman of the United Africa Company first suggested the scheme, the commission was sent out, including 30 per cent. of the company on it, and the United Africa Company were given full control of this scheme without any interference, until the Overseas Food Corporation were allowed to take over. That is on the record. That is certainly the case. The Opposition appear to overlook—or would wish to overlook, possibly—in talking about leaving the work to the local farmers, and about encouraging them by offering them increased prices to produce copra, that the African groundnuts development scheme was launched in 1946, when not only this country but the whole world was faced with an incalculable food problem and seeking the possibilities of increasing food production. The possibility of what our position would be in the next five or 10 years was foreseen. We were drastically short of fats to the tune of 1,500,000 tons. There was a wheat famine and rice famine, and there were repercussions in India, where the original groundnut scheme was undertaken, and India was keeping her production of fats because of her own food shortage.
This development could not have been done by private enterprise. We hear a lot of talk about the spirit of the merchant adventurers, and of how we should inculcate and follow that spirit now. Well, the spirit of the merchant adventurers did not ask for 100 per cent. guarantees. That spirit was expressed in precisely this kind of operation which the Government have undertaken for the immediate advantage of our own population, faced with a fats shortage, and for the advantage of Africa as well.
We have, and have had for a long time, a tremendous responsibility in Africa, and there is no question at all that this was a considerable enterprise in which was shown considerable initiative. The scheme was proposed in March, 1946; the commission left for Africa in June, 1946; and the scheme was put into operation very soon afterwards. So far, there have been tremendous difficulties, and as the Opposition have pointed out over and

over again, those difficulties have been due to the fact that there was practically no knowledge whatever of the conditions in those territories—no knowledge whatever of the possibilities for large-scale development on a mechanised basis. The production of groundnuts meant nothing less. No answer had yet been found to the tsetse fly, and all this had to be undertaken at the last minute when the country was in a position of crisis. We are entitled to ask why those Governments which had been responsible for these territories before had done nothing about it.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: There were one million tons of groundnuts available from elsewhere in those days.

Mr. Hynd: From India; but again, surely the whole purpose of our colonial responsibility in Africa and elsewhere is not simply to produce fats for this country. Are we to neglect these territories and the millions of people for whom we are responsible so long as we are fed from somewhere else? Certainly not.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Would it not have been a wise precaution to have found out about the difficulties to be overcome at the outset of the scheme?

Mr. Hynd: That is precisely what I am saying. We have had 100 years to find out about these things, but previous Governments have done nothing about it. Nothing was done until this Government acted in 1946. That is what I am busy saying, and it is no good the Opposition now blaming us.
We have heard a lot about the lack of harbour facilities at Dar-es-Salaam in all the previous Debates. We have not heard a word about it today. Why? Because Dar-es-Salaam is handling traffic—at the moment not on the scale we had hoped, but it is handling traffic. This tremendous barrage of criticism about Dar-es-Salaam and the harbour facilities overlooks the fact that before the war two commissions had already reported the need for deep-water berths at Dar-es-Salaam, and that nothing was done about it. According to Mr. Petitpierre, speaking at a meeting of the East Africa Section of the London


Chamber of Commerce, reported in the "East African and Rhodesian" of 26th May, 1948:
… the Railway [at Dar-es-Salaam] simply could not move goods away sufficiently quickly. That was the result of the ostrich-like policy of a Government which has refused to think and plan ahead. Long before the war the commercial community had urged the need for deep-water berths, and it was known that plans had been prepared by well-known consulting engineers, and nothing had been done.
But that is not a criticism of this Government. That is a criticism of Governments which had done nothing about it.
It is true, as the Opposition have said on this occasion, that the scheme is not going forward on the basis presented in the White Paper. The original report was quoted by the hon. Member for Eddisbury, who cited the figures of the original provisional programme laid down in the report of the commission—that so many hundreds of tons in the first two or three years should be possible. But even these figures were rejected by the Government, so why quote them now? The Government themselves, despite the expert advice given in the report, were suspicious about these figures, and in their preamble to the White Paper they pointed out that it might not be possible to reach anything like these figures. Indeed, if we turn to paragraph 4 of the White Paper we find this:
While the areas selected by the Mission for development appear to have been well chosen and the recommendation that the work should stand in Tanganyika is sound, it would be a serious error to bind the agency responsible for carrying out the work to follow the precise plan recommended in the Mission's report. This plan, which appears to be the best on the basis of the data … available, will be subject to continuous review in the light of fresh information gathered as the work progresses.
That was the Government's attitude. It was not a hard-and-fast acceptance of the figures given in the report. It goes further and says:
It does not, therefore, follow from the Government's decision either that the particular localities described by the Mission will be developed or that the order or rate of development will be as envisaged in their Report.
Why, in the face of that very cautionary measure taken by the Government, do we now have this criticism involving the figures of the report of the Mission, which the Government rejected? Why say the fact that the Government are

not developing the original territory mapped out in the report is evidence that this scheme is a failure, when the Government said at the beginning that it was by no means certain that these particular areas would be developed? We have now rejected Kenya and Northern Rhodesia altogether. Kongwa will be developed in certain areas next year, and then will be retained as an experimental ground. The main experiment will have to be developed in the Southern Province.
We have been asked: "Why was that not done originally? Why go to Kongwa, which was unsuitable?" The answer is that there were railway facilities near Kongwa; there was the Dar-es-Salaam harbour; whereas in the Southern Province there was neither harbour, railways, nor transport of any kind. But that is now being developed, and the experience that has been gained at Kongwa, the experimentation that has gone on there, and particularly the experimentation in the growth of alternative crops, in the production of the right kind of machinery, and all these other things, will be of inestimable value in developing the Southern Province.
There is also complaint about the fact that we have not secured the crops it was estimated in the original Mission's report we could secure, in spite of the provisions that were made by the Government. That again is true. It was suggested that the original report said 850 1b. per acre. The Government said, "Well, that is a little bit high. We do not know where we are going yet. Let us call it 750 lb." Actually, I understand the average at Kongwa is round about 450 lb. But that is an average, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry pointed out very clearly, when experimenting we must be prepared for losses and for failures. In fact, we must go for losses and failures if there is to be experimentation over the widest possible field. That is precisely what is happening, because even if the average is 450 lb., I understand the range is from about 50 lb. per acre to 1,000 or 2,000 lb. It has been found that at Kongwa they can grow groundnuts on a scale higher than the figure given in the original Mission's report, but to do that they had to experiment with a number


of varieties, and had to face up to certain losses.

Captain Crookshank: Where does the hon. Gentleman get the 450 lb. from?

Mr. Hynd: I think that is the average of the Kongwa crop last year. I may be wrong. I am subject to confirmation by the Minister.

Mr. Strachey: I think my hon. Friend means the 1948 crop.

Captain Crookshank: We are talking about this year.

Mr. Hynd: I said last year. I am not talking about the special drought period, but about the crop last year. That was the term I used.
A great deal has been said about the fact that we are now developing sunflowers. I have heard it said in this House, and seen it in the Press, that this again is evidence that our groundnut scheme is a failure. It is nothing of the kind. It was never firmly decided by the Government that we should grow only groundnuts. In fact, it was very closely pointed out, and always has been in these Debates, that this is not a scheme primarily or essentially for growing groundnuts to provide fats for Britain. This is a scheme of colonial development for opening up the vast potentialities of these territories, which have hitherto been neglected, to produce the foods and raw materials which are in these parts, but about which we are completely ignorant because there has not even been a geological survey of the territories, and nobody knows what is there.
As a result of the experimentation at Kongwa, they have already laid the basis of a considerable saving—a point which has never yet been made clear in this Debate—because the original idea was a four-year rotation, with two years of groundnuts and two years of grass. As a matter of fact, as a result of the experimentation which has been going on, they have now adopted a ten-year rotation, providing for three years sunflowers, five years groundnuts, and two years, not of grass alone, but of sorghum or grass, which means that as a result of that experiment it will now be possible to produce on two million acres the same

quantity of oils as it was originally expected would require 3¼ million acres. That is a valuable result of experiment which, in the long run, will represent a considerable saving, and it is an illustration of the kind of value we can get out of this sort of experimentation.
Kongwa is not now being developed on a full scale. The Urambo Province is now to be developed only to a certain point, again as an experimental station. But the work that will be required in the Southern Province will be very considerable. At Mikindani there is and has been no harbour as there was at Dar-es-Salaam, and it is true to say that it will be some time before the deep-water harbour is developed; I understand that 1950 is the anticipated date. As an illustration of the progress that is being made, according to the latest information we have already developed a temporary harbour there which is handling as much tonnage as the total tonnage handled at Dar-es-Salaam. That is considerable progress, and it is a great tribute to the initiative and energy of the people doing this job, in spite of the sneers which were made that they were mostly of the ex-Service and Civil Service type. It is a great pity that the services of these people are not better recognised in these Debates.
I saw the work which was going on at Kongwa, which had no railway leading up from the main line. That railway was brought up to Kongwa in a very short time by scrounging odd bits of rail to make the extension. That kind of thing was done with great energy and initiative. The experimentation with root cutting has not been very successful, but they were faced with difficulties which were not fully understood. When I was in Kongwa some two years ago, I found they were quite pleased with themselves because they had discovered they could use the groundnut husks for fuel. They have gone even further than that now and are using groundnut shells to produce brickets, which will enable them to provide all the electricity that is wanted for the scheme. That is not a bad tribute to the initiative and energy of the Civil Service and ex-Service types.
We have not heard a great deal about the Africans, although my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry did refer to them. They are an essential part of


this scheme. This scheme is not only a profit-making scheme and a scheme to produce fats for this country; it is also a scheme to help the Africans. As an illustration of what is being done, we have the hospital facilities which have been provided at Kongwa. It is true that it has cost some £220,000, which is a lot of money, but that hospital provides 900 beds, which is equal to the whole of the hospital services up to date of Tanganyika.
If we mean what we say in these Colonial Debates about improving the low standard of living and providing medical services and education in these parts, are we going to stop all this development that is going on? Are we going to stop all these things which have been demanded and in regard to which nothing has been done in the past?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member speaks of 900 beds. The hon. Baronet referred to 400 beds. I wonder who is right.

Mr. Hynd: I understood the number was 900, but the Minister can probably put us right if we are wrong. In any case, the fact remains that these facilities are equal to the total facilities which existed before. This hospital is not only providing for the employees of the groundnut scheme and their families, but is also providing for the local inhabitants. It provides 25 per cent. for the local inhabitants and 75 per cent. for the employees. This is not a profit-making concern, otherwise we would close it down for these other people and confine it to the groundnut scheme.

Mr. Osborne: If the primary object is to help the African people, why does the scheme not come under the Colonial Office instead of under the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Hynd: I think that the Ministry of Food are doing pretty well at the present time, and in any case the Colonial Office already have quite enough to do. The provision of these hospital facilities and schools for whites and Africans, and above all the provision of a new basis of economy for Tanganyika, Kenya and these other territories, has all followed from this scheme. Why should Tanganyika have to import the greater part of its raw materials and feedingstuffs?

These territories have been under our supervision for many years and have vast potentialities. Why, therefore, should they have to import their food and essential goods instead of producing them for themselves?

Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend was perfectly right when he referred to 900 beds.

Mr. Hynd: The potentiality of this area is illustrated by some figures which were given to me at Kongwa. It has been said that we would have done better by encouraging African producers by giving them higher prices—nothing of the kind. It is estimated that an African producer after providing for his own subsistence would produce 15 cwt. of groundnuts, whereas under this scheme he is in a position to produce 20 tons of groundnuts in addition to his food.
This is a measure of the potentialities and the almost infinite possibilities which are opened up for the first time for millions of people for whom we are so responsible. I do not want to say too, much about sisal planters. Reference has been made to their opposition, which is not disinterested opposition. The fact is that they are afraid of the African workers' advances. This opposition is entirely short-sighted and selfish. What is overlooked is that the sisal planters are now selling their sisal for £90 per ton against £17 per ton pre-war, whereas the African labourer on the farm is earning 15s. a month as compared with 12s. We can see that there is a substantial reason why they might be concerned about a substantial increase in African conditions.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will my hon. Friend give a little more information about the 15s. a month? Does that include subsistence.

Mr. Hynd: No. That is wages. The ration is approximately the same amount, making an estimated total of 30s. a month. Obviously these standards cannot be tolerated indefinitely, and this scheme is the only way to improve the economic position of the country and enable these low standards completely to be abolished.
It has been asked what the Opposition would have done in 1946, had they been in office, when faced with the great problem of food and fats supplies for


this country. Would they have left these territories undeveloped? Would they have prevented the establishment of the hospital services and the extensions made to the harbours at Dar-es-Salaam and Mikindani, letting the Africans continue to live on the same old basis? This scheme could not have been undertaken except by the Government. Private enterprise could not have done it, so what would the Tories have done? They might have set up a commission, if the United Africa Company had recommended it. The commission would probably have been sent out to produce some scheme of action for the development of these territories. But as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) said yesterday, the Conservative conception of a Minister's job in relation to a commission is to tear up its report, which they would certainly have done in this case As far as we can see, they are not only content to tear up the reports of commissions but also their election promises.
We should like to know whether or not the policy adumbrated by the noble Lord from the Opposition Front Bench is the policy of the Conservative Party. Is it or is it not the case that they are satisfied this scheme is a failure and cannot succeed in Africa? Are they in favour of going back to the old method of the African farmer producing 15 cwts a year? Would they have done something about it? Will they give the assurances that have been asked for to the employees engaged on the scheme, or will they repeat the sneers and criticisms that have been made by Members of the Front Bench opposite about the employees, which were repeated this afternoon—about "Civil Service types"—and which have been repeated by other representatives of the Front Bench of the Opposition in the columns of "The Financial Times" only recently and quoted in the East African papers?
Or are they to tell those people that whether or not there is a change of Government in this country at any time they will let these policies continue? Will they give that assurance, not only to the employees engaged on the scheme but to the people of this country? More important still, are they to give that assurance to the people of those African

territories who have waited too long for some opportunity for the opening up of their country, and its vast potentialities in regard to mineral wealth and food production being developed as well as our own? We should like to know.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I had not intended taking part in this Debate, and what I have to say is completely unprepared. In following the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) I would say that I hope we shall have no more of such petty, spiteful, party, Fabian speeches as that to which we have just listened. It is a speech typical of those which the hon. Member made when he went as a member of a delegation to Africa, which did such tremendous harm in that Colony. He was fortunately accompanied by two or three of his colleagues who went out there with open minds to see the country and who were prepared to come back to proclaim what this country had done in developing the British Empire. I hope that some of the Members who went on that delegation will be prepared to get up and say what they saw in Africa when they were there.

Mr. J. Hynd: The criticisms made of members of that delegation mentioned no particular member but were made indiscriminately against the whole delegation.

Mr. Baldwin: I have relatives in East Africa who sent me cuttings of the speeches made at that time. All that I have to say in reply to the hon. Gentleman is that if this country is to be accused of exploitation in regard to what has happened in Africa in the last 50 years, I hope that there will be exploitation to the same extent in the next 50 years. During that 50 years, in Kenya, in which I am particularly interested, we have stopped slave-driving and tribal warfare and initiated medical services, which have meant that the African population has doubled in number in 25 years and is continually increasing. That is why the problem of food has been raised. The problem that faces Africa is not that of feeding the British public, but of feeding herself.
I am sorry that we should enter this Debate with any idea that the groundnuts scheme in Africa is something which will provide a large quantity of food for this


country. If we are to get out of the Africans the work necessary to develop their country, they have to be better fed, they have to work longer and harder. It does no good to try to make them believe that the British taxpayer will continually foot the bill in the future. The African will have to work his own passage, and it is to his own good that he should be told that. As the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) said the other day, it is time that the Africans were told quite plainly that the British nation is more or less bankrupt and that they will have to develop their own resources.
I leave the hon. Gentleman and return to the Debate. The impression which I think all Members must get from this Debate is that a good deal of bad work has been done in looking at the possibilities of this scheme. Mistakes have been made and we now have to decide "Where do we go from here?" I cannot help thinking, after listening to the reasoned speech of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow), that what he had to say, and what he said in a very reasonable and unprovocative manner, will require some answering. I hope that the Minister has come prepared to give some reply. We have to realise that the groundnuts scheme in Africa has reached the stage of being a great experimental failure. We have to realise that the forecasts made as to what we were to get in the way of groundnuts from Africa are entirely wrong.
I think that the method of the production of groundnuts by the Overseas Food Corporation is misconceived, and I suggest to the House that we should now decide that a commission of practical men should be appointed to go out there as a fact finding commission, and to come back and make recommendations to this House about what they think should take place. Let us have no saving of faces. Let us freely admit the mess which the scheme is in, and decide what we are to do. It is a fantastic thought that Whitehall should attempt primary production anywhere, least of all in the tropics. Some pilot scheme should have been carried out in the first place, and it should have then have been decided whether there was any future or not for such a project.
If it had been decided that there was a future for it, then the job should have been handed over to the Colonial Office

to carry out. I suggest that even today it would be better that that should be done, and that the duty of the Colonial Development Corporation should be not to grow the groundnuts but to develop the supply of water which is necessary, to provide railways for the transport of the nuts when grown, if they can be grown, and to develop housing for the African native.
The growing of the nuts should now be handed over to the African native, who is doing that work well in West Africa. He is piling up groundnuts in West Africa to such an extent that they cannot be moved. If the Government had provided rail facilities to move the groundnuts from West Africa, the British housewife would have been much more likely to get more margarine than from the present groundnut scheme.

Mr. Edward Davies: How long does the hon. Member imagine it would have taken, and what would the expense have been, to provide a double track from Kano through Nigeria to give us any immediate increase in the fat ration?

Mr. Baldwin: I suggest that if a small part of the expenditure of £25 million had been utilised in providing rails and locomotives in West Africa, those nuts would not be piling up and being destroyed today by insect pests. The sooner we face that fact the better.
The question has arisen as to whether this scheme was primarily one for the production of food for the British housewife or was to assist the African native. The two things should go hand in hand. The scheme was undoubtedly started because the Ministry of Food wanted to obtain food for the British housewife. If ever there was a case of exploitation by this country in the Colonial Empire, that was it. Any suggestion that the scheme was started with the idea of helping the African native is moonshine.
The only way to help the African native today is to go on with the scheme, if it is decided by a commission that it is feasible, by letting the African native have his area of land on which to get on with primary production. In that way we shall help the African native; we are not doing so at the present time. We should take some steps to see what is to


be done. We are in a serious economic situation. We have poured out £25 million on that scheme, and another £1 million monthly without knowing whether it is going to be a successful scheme or not. The sooner the House has an opportunity of debating what form the growing of groundnuts in East Africa is going to take the better it will be.
I want to say a word about American capital. The hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) criticised the fact that the Americans were not putting capital into Africa. The American is not going to put his money into a country until he knows something of what we intend to do with that part of the Empire. The impression that we are giving to the European in Africa today is that we are on the way out. How in the world does the Government or this country expect the American public to put money into a country when they think that we are on our way out of it.

Mr. Strachey: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that an investment of £25 million in a country is some evidence that we are going into it rather than coming out of it?

Mr. Baldwin: The evidence of what this Government may do with money on which they lay their hands is only too well-known. We have to accept the evidence as we know it, as well as the speeches continually made by members of the Government as to what is the future of Africa. If we have the interests of the African native at heart, we have got to tell him in no uncertain manner what we intend to do in the future. He is in a state of adolescence. There never was a time when the African wanted guidance and firmness more than at the present, and if we do not give him that guidance and bring him along with us, giving him responsibility, the future for the African is black. [Laughter.] That is quite right. I will not say which black it is going to be.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Black and blue.

Mr. Baldwin: It may be black from India or from Africa, and that is what the African has got to remember. I hope he will remember that his friends

are the Europeans, and the longer they stay there to bring that country round, the better it will be for him.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I should not have ventured to take part in this Debate if I had not had the opportunity of going to East Africa just over 12 months ago and seeing at first hand a little of the scheme in operation and the reactions to it. I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) on his opening speech for, although I do not agree with all his conclusions, yet much of his speech was factual and he attempted to give a true picture as he saw it. He seemed quite sincere also when he said that this issue ought not to be a political one. It is most deplorable that a great conception of this character should be the subject of the kind of political controversy we have seen in this House this afternoon. I will not particularise who is to blame—it would be presumptuous if I did. [Interruption.] Well, the first speech of a political character was not made from this side of the House. I am only saying that whoever started it, it is contemptible to bring the personality of the Minister into this conflict. It is a lowering of our standards and deprives quite serious criticisms of their validity.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) showed very considerable prejudices and a good deal of spite. A scheme of this kind, if successful, will be a success far transcending anything the Government themselves do or the Government can claim they can do. It all depends on the men in the field, on the Africans and on the planners at home; and we ought to be anxious that it should succeed, and do all we can, every one of us, to make it a success. Our criticisms should be objective and non-personal. I hope we shall try to approach this subject in that way.
In considering a scheme of this sort we must first remember the background against which the decision had to be taken. In 1946–47 we were able to see and estimate some of the effects the war would have on food production all over the world. We could measure for the first time the very great gap between world food supplies and world food requirements. We know also that in the period between the beginning and the


ending of the war, world population had been growing at a very rapid rate. Indeed, world population had increased by 133 million additional persons compared with 1939. We have to face the fact that every single day about 50,000 more mouths require to be fed throughout the world.
When this decision to go for large-scale production of fats was made there was no Marshall Aid and the world was acutely short of fats. There was no area in the world where these fats could be bought in any large quantity. We had also to reconcile ourselves to the very unpleasant fact that millions of people in the world were demanding a higher standard of living. The 500 million Chinese and our other Asiatic friends, including 400 million Indians, had demonstrated that they were not prepared to go on exporting a large part of their food to us and simultaneously seeing a great many of their people dying of starvation or living on a low standard. The failure of the rice crops was a further factor. Even now there is only about 12 ounces per day of rice for the inhabitants of India against 16 ounces before the war. It is quite clear that that deficiency is going to be made up by food produced at home. No alternative fats were available in the world, and the Government had to take a momentous decision. We should applaud their action and those from all sides who assisted in that great decision.

Mr. Gallacher: But not the Tories.

Mr. Skeffington: At the same time we have to remember that our own population has been increasing, and that there is available for food production at home only something like 0.6 of an acre per head, whereas what was required was something like 1.6 per acre per head if we are to maintain the average diet of 1938. We cannot do it from our territorial resources, which was an additional reason why we had to buy time. It meant we had to do things, which normally would have taken 50 times as long in East Africa, but if we were going to get a reasonable return or add to our food resources we had in a reasonable period to buy time, which is a costly thing to do. Otherwise this project would start too late and produce too little.
In considering this cost it is very unfortunate that so much of this scheme, which is a social as well as an economic scheme, has got to be debited against the Ministry of Food. Schools and hospitals apart from the roads, railways and harbours are all capital developments of inestimable value to the territory concerned, and it is quite wrong that we should have to show our figures in that way. I should have thought it was possible to have separated these essential, social capital investments in a way that has not in fact been done. When we go into an area which is quite undeveloped and provide first-class social amenities, which are putting our social services in other parts of East Africa in the shade, this capital investment should be separately computed and not borne by the Overseas Food Corporation.
The other point which must be borne in mind is that not only is our need for fats so extraordinarily urgent, but that the pressure of population in East Africa alone is something that we must pay attention as a considerable problem. It is estimated that the population of East Africa is likely to double in the next ten years. Doctor Patterson wrote a very interesting booklet not so very long ago—he was the Director of Medical Services in Kenya for a considerable period—in which he says,
If some radical way of increasing the food supplies in the area of East Africa is not found then we are left only with 'famine, pestilence or war for remedy'.
For both purposes, and they are fairly evenly balanced, we had to buy time to take this decision, and it was expensive.
Finally, in this connection let us realise that unless this scheme and other schemes of a similar character which the Ministry of Food is undertaking, particularly in Africa, are successful, it will be impossible for us to maintain our population at its present rate in these islands and we shall have to face either a general lowering of our standards or mass migration. I do not believe either method is necessary but there is no short alternative way. This is a fundamental fact.
Perhaps I may now deal with a point made by three hon. Members opposite. The first is that an answer to the fat shortage might be found in peasant cultivation. I believe that all the evidence is against it. First of all, peasant cultivation depends


upon far more supervision than we are able to give. It means that one has to step up perhaps by 20 times the number of agricultural instructors and they are not available. Then one has to guard much more strenuously against the perils of soil erosion which anybody who knows East Africa will agree can occur where land has been foolishly cultivated. Soil has been lost for this reason for all time, or at least for the next half million years.
Even if we could secure peasant cultivation and get producers to grow groundnuts—I see no reason why they should have to do so. We should find it impossible to collect and store the products. But suppose we could, surely no one can seriously suggest that the African population outside the Union of South Africa can possibly replace the labour force that we lost in India. We are asking 60 million people to do what was done by 350 million people in India. Even if we could get peasant cultivation—I do not think we can get African cultivators to make up the quantity even in part and we certainly will not replace the production of groundnuts which we have lost for all time from India.
There is a serious proof of this contention to which nobody has referred and it is the evidence which has been presented in the Clay report of the West African Oilseeds Commission. I only want to quote two brief portions of it. They constitute a very strong argument which I hope hon. Members will answer if they are going to insist that there is an alternative to the East African scheme. The Commission say, on page 6, paragraph 5:
We suggest therefore that unless a great acreage per family can be brought into cultivation and a higher degree of efficiency production achieved, peasant agriculture cannot provide both the food which Africa itself requires and will require in increasing measure, and its export crops by which its natural wealth can be maintained and increased.
That report was made by an entirely different set of individuals to the groundnut scheme report. It deals with the suggestion that was put forward by the Opposition particularly about nuts from Nigeria. There is a footnote and it is relevant. It says:
The dangers of the present situation (that is to say fluctuation and the low yield from peasant holdings) was well exemplified by market conditions in Northern Nigeria at the time of our visit"—

I think that was in November, 1947
when a crop of 300,000 tons of groundnuts (high by Nigerian standards but low in relation to world needs) had been secured only at the expense of a comparative shortage of the grain crops which form the staple diet of the local population. This shortage has resulted in high prices and if the chances of weather had further reduced this crop, might have led to famine.
It is an illusion therefore to imagine an enormous supply of groundnuts in Nigeria at all times. We can see that it depends upon the fluctuation climate and upon the fact that alternative crops were not available. This area cannot supply permanently our requirements or those of the African. I do not believe there is any alternative to a large scheme, whether publicly or privately run by individual cultivators. I think the report proves the point.
It was suggested that the Minister had not made proper investigations into rainfall. I have tried to show that the urgency of the world situation meant that we had to buy time and act quickly. In any case, how can we get rainfall figures for a long period from deserted Central Africa? Who would have recorded them, I should like to know. But at Kongwa the Mission have kept figures for a long period. Canon Banks, who has lived there for 25 years, places on record that the present drought is the most serious one that has ever been experienced for generations in East Africa There is evidence that the drought is exceptional but I must point out that in the original White Paper "A Plan for Mechanised Production," very considerable references are made to the effect of drought. It is something which comes in very high degree and usually does not recur for many years afterwards.
We have just been unlucky. Africa has broken the hearts of many men and enterprises. No one would imagine that within a few years all the different problems of such a vast organisation would be solved. I do not believe anybody had actually thought they would be. If one has flown across the areas around Kongwa with their dense jungle and then sees the vast area of cultivation one realises that this is a very dramatic occasion and that the men on the spot are doing a magnificent job of work in spite of temperature, disease, tsetse fly and drought and many other difficulties. Let us give some


credit to achievements of the groundnuts scheme which are without parallel anywhere in the world. No country has ever initiated so great an enterprise.

5.48 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: This has been a very extraordinary Debate, although a very good one. For much of the factual information with regard to the problem which we wish to discuss we are indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow), who opened the Debate and told us what he had been able to ascertain during his recent visit there. The Minister has been there immediately after the hon. Baronet. We expected that the Minister would give us his report in order that we could make our comments upon it in the course of the discussion. We had reason the other day to expect that would occur. When he made a short statement about a fortnight ago, the Minister actually said that he would welcome an opportunity to make a fuller statement to the House. We put down this subject today, which is one of the days of our choice, to give him that opportunity. The statement has not emerged. All that we are to have is a winding-up speech from him at the tail end of a short Debate, the whole object of which was to get information.
The House has had very scant courtesy, but that does not take away from the fact that we are indebted to the hon. Baronet for the speech that he gave us. It is true that on 11th July the Minister did make a short statement at Question time. He has now tried to make out that in an interjection somebody objected that what he said was too long. No one did any such thing. That is a complete figment of his imagination. I have the HANSARD here. One of my hon. Friends suggested that it was the type of answer which might be given at the end of Questions in order to give opportunity for supplementary Questions more numerous than otherwise. No one objected to its being too long. I am afraid that is the technique into which the Minister is rapidly falling, of being slightly inaccurate, and I stress the word "slightly."
What the right hon. Gentleman said was in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). There are plenty of facts about the situation, but the up-to-date facts are apparently these. He said that

at that time about half the groundnut crop and one-sixth of the oilseed crop had been harvested. He said quite frankly that, largely owing to the drought, the crop had been a failure and that the average yield of the nuts which had so far emerged was 245 lb. instead of the original reduced figure which the Minister had in mind long ago of 750 lb. He pointed out that the yield for the oilseeds, then harvested, though admittedly only a small proportion of it had yet been cut, was 99 lb.
That is a very small figure, and one hopes that it is going to get better than that. We have had the evidence of Professor Blackman, of Oxford, that on marginal land in the eastern counties of this country in ordinary sort of weather, one should be able to grow a crop of sunflower seed 15 times that production. That raises the question whether even now some further assistance to marginal land cultivation in this country might produce more from the point of view of food for this country, which, of course, is one of the considerations at the back of the Minister's mind in all this scheme, and thus yield far better and safer results.
On 11th July the Minister said that the shipment of oilseed would soon begin. Perhaps he could tell me this incidentally when he answers. I have heard a story. I find it almost incredible, but one always hears something new out of Africa, as he knows from his classics. The story was that last year they over-bought the sunflower seeds to such an extent that the quantity which was not required was now going to be shipped here, and the impression was being given that it was, part of the crop harvested there. If he can contradict that, I shall be very pleased. It is the sort of story which should be stopped if there is no truth in it.
The Minister also told us that so far the cost was between £20 million and £25 million. I wondered what Mr. Gladstone would have thought of a Cabinet Minister speaking of "£20 million or £25 million." Not being able to know what the expenditure was up to date, he gave a margin of £5 million out of £20 million. Then the Minister told us that only a few thousand tons of oilseeds, groundnuts and so on were coming this year. In March he said, "a perceptible number,


some thousands of tons." Now he says, "a few thousand tons." The likelihood appears to be that either "a perceptible number, some thousands of tons" or "a few thousand tons" is unlikely to be as much as two thousand. I quite agree that two thousand is a perceptible number. We get 0, and then 1 and then we get 2, so that it is perceptible, but it is not very large and it is certainly stretching the English language to call 2,000 "some thousands." I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether that is the right figure. If it is—granted difficulties in the way of drought and so on—hon. Members in all parts of the House must feel that it is terribly disappointing.
The whole trouble about the discussions which have gone on from time to time about the East Africa development scheme has really been due to the Minister himself and no one else. He has so much stressed the groundnuts side of the scheme and so soft pedalled the other part of the scheme, which was its value as part of the general development of Africa, that he now finds it difficult to change the tune. But the tune is being changed. Anyone who was here when the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) was speaking would have heard him say that this never was a groundnuts scheme but a scheme for developing Africa. I was so surprised at hearing it put that way that I thought I had better look at the covering memorandum to the report—

Mr. J. Hynd: I never said that this was never intended as a groundnuts scheme. I said that it was never primarily a groundnuts scheme, and that is what I said in the first Debate two years ago.

Captain Crookshank: I certainly do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but that was the impression he gave me in the words he was then using. If I got the wrong impression, I am sorry. Anyhow, it does not affect what I am now going to say. I thought I had better look to see what the Government said in their covering note. The heading was:
The Government's decision to adopt the full scheme.
It went on to say that the Government had come to the conclusion that the scheme was:
A practicable plan for alleviating the world shortage of fats.

That was the first thing, and obviously that was the thing on which their minds, if any, were most concentrated. It went on:
That it is agriculturally sound; that, subject to reasonable assumptions, it involves no unjustifiable financial risk; that labour difficulties can be overcome.
There is nothing so far about great development of Africa. It also says that:
It could prove"—
just like that—
of great benefit to the African populations as well as to the people of the United Kingdom.
I do not think that anybody who had never heard the matter discussed, reading that quite dispassionately, would have dreamt that the object as it is now purported to be was really the development of Africa. No one would have believed that, and it is no good pretending—

Mr. Skeffington: rose—

Captain Crookshank: I shall have something to say later on about the hon. Gentleman's admirable speech.

Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps we are talking about different documents. The document I have here is, "A plan for the mechanised production of groundnuts in East and Central Africa," Command Paper 7030. In addition to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, pages 6 and 7 are devoted to the economic and social effects of the scheme in Africa.

Captain Crookshank: I know there is some more later on about the economic and social developments, but I am talking about the grounds upon which the Government gave this decision. That is what this paragraph is concerned about. This is what the Government decided. As a matter of fact, there is a whole page of a quotation from Sir Philip Mitchell, which is not the Government either.
The emphasis—it is no good pretending, otherwise—from the Government side has been on the groundnuts aspect of the scheme. I think I am entitled to remind hon. Members that the emphasis from the Opposition has always been on great doubt whether the groundnuts aspect would succeed, but we thought that it was a very valuable conception for developing Tanganyika. That has been the difference in emphasis on the scheme


all along. That is why we wanted to hear the most up-to-date information about it today.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe said that the Opposition grumbled. There has not been any grumbling today, except that the Minister has not spoken. The hon. Member said that the scheme is succeeding, and that there is no need to grumble at that. It depends on what we are describing as the scheme. If we are describing the estimates in the third year from the start that we are to get so many thousand tons, it is not succeeding, because we are not getting so many thousand tons. On the other hand, if it is that the roads have been going forward, that Africans are now living and earning wages in an area where there was nothing before, that a hospital, I do not know for how many beds—As the hon. Baronet the Member for Eddisbury is now here, I will address the remark to him. He said that there was a hospital for 400 beds. The Minister has denied that, and has said it is for 900 beds. I do not know which of them is right.

Sir J. Barlow: I was informed when I was there that it was for 400 beds. They were not all erected, but the beds and equipment were there available for use.

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps I can reconcile the two statements. The hospital to which the hon. Baronet went is for 400 beds. There are 400 hospital beds now in the scheme.

Captain Crookshank: The Minister said 900 just now.

Mr. Strachey: There are 400 in the hospital and 900 altogether.

Captain Crookshank: I do not know where the other 500 are if there is no other hospital; it must be an open-air affair. It just shows once again that, if only the Minister had opened this Debate, we would have known these things. I was saying that all along the emphasis from that side of the House and in particular from the Minister personally, has been on the groundnuts aspect, and from this side of the House it has always been that it would obviously be to the interest to this country and the world if we could get groundnuts, though we knew incidentally that we could get them quicker and cheaper in other ways.

Mr. Strachey: Where?

Captain Crookshank: Has the right hon. Gentleman not heard of Nigeria and contiguous territories? All right, he has a lot to learn yet. Apparently, he is now coming round to our point of view. That is satisfactory.
I only want to be a few minutes in order that we may have this long-expected speech from the Minister. It is obvious, even from what hon. Members have said, that what emerges at the moment is that public confidence has been shaken over the groundnuts aspect of the scheme, whether it is a perceptible number or a few thousands, which may be 2,000 this year. I do not say that the groundnuts aspect of the scheme has disappeared from the public mind, because it is the experience of anybody that the mere mention of a groundnut arouses intense interest and hilarity on every public platform.

Mr. Percy Wells: It must be in the nature of the Tory propaganda.

Captain Crookshank: There must be something comic about nuts, as the hon. Gentleman may know. It is indeed obvious that the emphasis of the scheme is changing, if indeed it has not yet been changed. I want to try to get the greatest amount of agreement on this problem, and so do my hon. Friends, and I am sure we would all agree about that. If it is admitted, as it must be, that, like all Socialist plans, the plan so far has failed; if we can agree with the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) who said that the difficulties were tremendous and that nobody in his senses would have expected the plan to succeed in its early days, we say that so much has been involved in this matter that we cannot afford, to put it mildly, to let it all fail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) has pointed out, every taxpayer in this country has had invested for him, whether he wanted it or not, something approaching 10s.
I made some suggestions in March but the Minister did not see fit to do anything about any of them. I appreciate what has been said by various hon. Members, that the people who are concerned now in the present management and organisation of the scheme, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for the work they have done, have replaced the


early personnel who were largely ex-Service. I think the hon. Member was wrong in saying that the hon. Baronet had sneered at them. All he said was that there had been great changes in the personnel, that the early people there were largely ex-Service, but that these had been changed. He did not use any sneering words at all and no one would wish to do so, because they have done all they could in difficult circumstances.
No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to know what we would do about the scheme if, at this moment, the right hon. Gentleman sat over here and one of my right hon. Friends was in his place. The Labour Party spend their time denigrating the work of Conservative administrations before the war and also our plans for the future, but it was quite novel for the hon. Member to ask what a Conservative Government would have done in 1946. He then proceeded to answer this question to his own satisfaction but in a manner which would have had no relation to our activities had we then been in office.
We must start first by accepting that the original conception has gone. In fact, it never got very far because the original conception was of three areas—Rhodesia, Kenya and Tanganyika—so as to spread the drought risk. The Government have scrapped that, and it is now concentrated. On the evidence we have to accept that the actual groundnut-sunflower scheme has already gone. We have also to accept that this vast sum of money, £20 million to £25 million, has been spent and that, as representatives of the taxpayers, if nothing else, we must try to put our heads together to see what best use we can make out of the money already spent.
I say as I said in March—and I hope I can say for my hon. and right hon. Friends that it is what we would do if we were in the place of the Minister today—that what the Government ought to do is to send out some really representative inquiring body. I do not specify whether it should be a Royal Commission or what it should be, but it should have wide terms of reference, not to investigate past mistakes, miscalculations, and mismanagement, if any. The Public Accounts Committee will have its say in those matters and we are

not concerned with that aspect at the moment, important though it is. The Government should send out somebody of high skill to investigate what use can best be made of what now exists and the best plan for the immediate future and for the years to come.
Changes are happening: they are going on piecemeal, we know. We should not have a standstill in the sense that everyone is twiddling his thumbs for months and months. What is going on must go on, the changes which are happening must happen, pilot schemes must continue, the roads which are being constructed must continue to be constructed, and the railway must continue to be constructed. The pipeline is already completed. I do not know that it is necessary to go full steam ahead with a new harbour because it may be, as the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) suggested earlier, that for the greater part of the development scheme lighters could be used. I do not say that we should stop doing everything straight away, but the time has come when the scheme should be reviewed on the basis of the future because it is the future which matters.
Secondly, I should say that those investigators, or some other body, should look into the question of who should be made responsible for this matter. We do not believe that the right structure is the Overseas Food Corporation and the Minister of Food, and we have said it time and time again. In our view there is no reason why it should not be turned over to the Colonial Development Corporation under the aegis of the Secretary of State. One might have thought that because it was food it must go to the Overseas Food Corporation were it not for the fact that the Colonial Development Corporation itself has now gone in for food development on the other side of Africa and has the Gambia chicken scheme with 20 million eggs and one million dressed chickens coming along some time under their auspices. That is where all this should be put.
Tribute has been paid by the hon. Baronet to the hospitals, to the schools, to the houses which are being built. They have nothing to do with the Food Corporation. I agree with the hon. Member for West Lewisham that if we are thinking of this in terms of food, it is sad


that all those capital costs should be debited to the Food Corporation with which they are not directly concerned. They are far more long term than because we want the food produced there.
Furthermore, the latest information—as far as I know, it is perfectly correct—is that the Food Corporation are now enlisting their own police force of over 100 policemen with white officers; but I do not think that the Minister of Food is frightfully good at supervising police forces. If he is, he ought not to be in his present job. He has enforcement officers, I know, but that is quite a different affair. I dare say that responsibilities of this sort, which have grown up, were never intended when the thing began; but having got there, they really must be put under the general supervision of the Colonial Secretary. I should have thought that this could have been done without any further inquiry, but if not, let the inquiry be made and let somebody decide.
I assert without any fear of contradiction that we on these benches are fully, gladly and completely committed to the principle of colonial development and to the raising of the standards of life of the colonial people. We do not believe that the Minister of Food is the right person to deal with this problem. We are equally, as a party, fully, gladly and completely committed to improving the general economic conditions of the Empire as a whole, and included in that, of that part of the Empire which happens to be the United Kingdom. But we are not necessarily committed to continuing ideas which have been proved wrong, which seems to be a tendency in this scheme still. Of course, had the Minister opened the Debate, we might have been disillusioned on that score. Neither are we necessarily committed to ignoring all the lessons learnt in the last two years; there have been signs of that happening under the present administration.
While the Minister has always personally, and in a good deal of the propaganda, been very optimistic on the groundnuts part of the scheme, he has tried to short-circuit nature far too much, and nature seems to be temporarily winning on that front. The African side of the picture

is the big picture and we feel—indeed, we know—on either side of the Committee that our national prestige is very much involved. We want to do what we can to help the right hon. Gentleman. He never seems to think so, but it is true for all that. It is because we are so anxious to see that side of the matter emphasised that we want the problem taken out of his hands and put where it rightly belongs, in the Minister who is responsible to the Crown, to this House, to this nation and to the Colonial Empire, for the very problems which are being—at least, I could say, to some extent—mishandled by the Minister of Food, with whom it has nothing whatsoever to do.

6.13 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The Debate this afternoon was opened by a speech from the hon. Baronet the Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) gave tribute. I should like to join in that tribute. It was a most temperate and well-reasoned speech. On a very large part of it I have no comment to make, but I should like to comment on one or two points on which I either disagree or can give further information. The hon. Baronet stated that at present we were spending £1 million a month. That is a very rapidly falling figure, because that is expenditure on the capital investment which is being made. This is relevant to the further statement of the hon. Baronet that he does not think that whatever revenue the scheme can have can ever meet an expenditure of anything like £1 million a month.

Sir J. Barlow: I did not say exactly that. I said that it would be a very long way behind in the process of catching up and that meanwhile the capital expenditure was very substantial indeed.

Mr. Strachey: I was about to agree that the revenue could never meet expenditure at that level. But revenues are never meant to meet initial capital expenditure; they are meant to pay an interest on it. That initial capital expenditure, which has gone on at that high rate, is rapidly falling and will continue to do so as the development scheme is completed. Sometime in the future, of course, that


type of expenditure on capital development will cease altogether, because there will be merely the agricultural expenditure which the revenues are then designed to meet. It is necessary that we should distinguish between the initial capital investment and the current running expenditure.

Sir J. Barlow: I quite agree, but can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to how much capital will be expended in, say, the next three years in completing the scheme?

Mr. Strachey: I spoke at some length on that on 14th March. I do not think I ought to go over all the ground again, but the present rate of expenditure which the hon. Baronet mentioned will drop off rapidly from now on.

Lord William Scott: Can the Minister tell us what he thinks the total initial capital expenditure is likely to amount to?

Mr. Strachey: I spoke on that also on 14th March and said that the scheme as I saw it, as far as one can conceive these things, would, as the hon. Baronet also has said, be likely to cost double the estimate contained in the White Paper. That was the figure I gave.
The hon. Baronet asked me the amount of the dollar expenditure on the scheme so far. It is some £2 million out of the £25 million which have been spent. He then went on to contrast, as of course, he and any other hon. Member are quite entitled to do, the present rate of development with that foreshadowed in the White Paper and to show that it is very much slower. That again, of course, is perfectly true.
We must face the fact, as I faced it very clearly on 14th March, that the time estimates also in the White Paper are not going to be fulfilled. We ought not to regard that White Paper as simply having been hurriedly accepted by the Government. After all, it was submitted to the Colonial Development and Economic Council under the late Lord Portal, who reported very strongly in favour of it, and rightly, in my opinion, and gave that report to the Government. That was part of the evidence upon which the Government acted.
I come now to the somewhat less temperate speech, if I may say so, of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), who went so far as to say that we had acted without making any investigation at all of rainfall figures. That is a gross injustice to the members of the Wakefield Commission, and I can give the figures at once. They found that the best figures available were in the Kongwa area, which over the last ten years showed an average rainfall of 25 inches. The actual rainfall this year in the area of the Kongwa scheme was under 12 inches. That is why I reported to the House that there had been a drought in that area—and not only in that area, but in the whole area in East Africa. The yields which have been mentioned, quite accurately, by the hon. Baronet and by other hon. Members are very substantially accounted for by the fact that this year there was under half the average rainfall.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: What was the rainfall for the three years of operations at Kongwa?

Mr. Strachey: In 1948 it was 17 inches; in 1947, 50 inches; and in 1946, 22 inches.

Mr. Stanley: In those years, therefore, it never reached 25 inches?

Mr. Strachey: In 1947, I said, it reached 50 inches. It varies pretty widely, but it is doubtful whether in the period for which there are records it has ever been as low as 12 inches. Undoubtedly, as is mentioned in the Wakefield Report, in the Kongwa area we have to face the risk of periodic droughts. Although they will not be very frequent, they occur periodically in that part of East Africa. That is one of the reasons why the Corporation, rightly, I should have thought, have decided to limit the development of the scheme in that area and are concentrating to a small extent on the western area and essentially on the southern area.
The hon. Member for Newbury made a less than generous mention of the chairman of the Corporation, who, I feel, needs no defence from me. It was suggested, I think, by the hon. Baronet that in the first place, ex-Service men were in charge of the scheme and that later on civil servants succeeded them. It so happens that Sir Leslie Plummer, the


chairman of the scheme does not fall into either of those categories. He is and always has been a business man—

Sir J. Barlow: I think I made it clear that I meant the top people in charge of the scheme, not necessarily the chairman, or the board itself, but that the top people were ex-Service men, and now they tend to be more of the Civil Service type.

Mr. Strachey: That is a separate point, but I should have thought they tended at the beginning to be mainly employees of the United Africa Company and would, therefore, be mainly business men. There was a distinguished soldier, Major General Harrison, the chief executive officer of the scheme until his health broke down, and now there is Sir Leslie Plummer, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newbury. I was making the point that, whatever criticism may be brought against him he is neither a Service type nor a Civil Service type but essentially a businessman, and if we had not appointed a businessman to the position what very sharp criticism we would have had from hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Newbury went on to say that there was no one in this scheme who had experience of tropical agriculture in Africa, but the man running the scheme and fully responsible is Professor Phillips who is perhaps the greatest expert on tropical agriculture in the whole of Africa.

Mr. Hurd: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misquote me, but I said there was no one with experience of commercial agriculture in the tropics. That is the point and that is true.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member means on the board?

Mr. Hurd: That is what I mean.

Mr. Strachey: That is not true of Mr. Samuel, the chairman of the United Africa Company, who has probably more experience of tropical Africa than anyone. I think it rather a pity that we should go into the personalities of these men who are running the scheme. I thought it necessary to rebut the charges, the rather ungenerous charges, made against them.
The hon. Member went on to deal with a point, which was also dealt with by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough, who spoke at some length of the particular Government Department which should be responsible for the scheme. It may be a good point that the Colonial Office and not the Ministry of Food should be responsible. I do not think hon. Members opposite are right, for reasons I have given at some length, but it never seemed a very essential point one way or the other. The scheme is not being run by the Ministry of Food and it would not be run, I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree, by the Colonial Office if it were under the aegis of the Colonial Office. It is run by the public Corporation responsible for it. I think hon. Members opposite would be the first to criticise whichever Government Department or parent Department it was if it was interfering in the actual running of the scheme.

Mr. Stanley: Would not the effect of transferring to the Colonial Office be that it would be run by the Colonial Development Corporation who are running development schemes elsewhere in the Colonies and not by this Overseas Food Corporation?

Mr. Strachey: I was coming to that point and also to the point that the emphasis was being changed from foodstuffs to general colonial development. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) spoke of the Gezira scheme and the experience available there, and I speak for the Corporation when I say that if there were any officers or executives available from that great scheme their experience and services would very readily be utilised in Tanganyika.
The hon. Member spoke of the production of tractors and suggested that we ought to manufacture an American type of tractor in this country under licence, rather than developing a tractor of our own. I thought that a pity, because Messrs. Vickers have the production of the first really heavy British tractor in hand and I have confidence that that great firm can produce a tractor which will be second to none in the world. The matter of time is not of the essence here because we have a


fairly large quantity of secondhand war-worn tractors bought by the United Africa Company at the beginning and also converted Sherman tanks, which have been converted by Messrs. Vickers, neither of which is as good as a brand new tractor but which will serve the purpose for a year or two while the brand new tractor is developed.
I come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), which I thought a very able survey in defence of the scheme. He spoke of yields and asked if it were not the case that in the area of the scheme in the southern area where there was no drought this year the yield, far from being very low as at Kongwa, it had been very high. That is the case, and I pointed out on an earlier occasion in this House that the fact that the drought had not affected the Southern Province, which will be the main home of the scheme, was a matter of some importance.
I was very strongly criticised outside this House for having said that, because it was pointed out that the scheme had only a negligible acreage in the Southern Province so far. That is true, but, as the main investment is to be made there it is highly relevant that there was no drought even in this dry year in the Southern Province and that yields were high and, as my right hon. Friend said, very much above the average estimate of 750 lb. But I would warn him and the House that one must not make any deductions from trial plots as one cannot expect that that will necessarily be translated into a large area.
The opinion I would take on this matter is that of Professor Phillips whom I consulted in East Africa. His view was, taking one factor with another, the drought in Kongwa and the undeniably encouraging good results on the trial plots in the south, that he saw no reason at the moment either to write up or write down the initial estimate of 750 lb. as the sort of yield which would be obtained in the end.
I now come to the speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) whose main point was that when the clearing had been done the area should be turned over to cultivation by the East

African peasants. He suggested the analogy was West Africa where the Africans cultivate groundnuts on a great scale with great success. I think the hon. Member should realise that the stage of development of the African in East Africa and in West Africa is almost centuries apart. The West African has got to a far higher stage of development than at any rate the Africans in the Kongwa and the Southern area.
To anyone who has visited the area it is not practical to suggest that the Wagogo Tribe could take over a vast area cleared by giant tractors and cultivate them when literally the only tool they can use is the hoe. That is the only tool Africans in that area have known. To anyone who knows anything of the stage of development of the native population in different parts of Africa the analogy completely breaks down.

Mr. Baldwin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while at the moment the African native is using a hoe, it is our duty to teach him to develop proper cultivation?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, indeed, and on both my visits it has been a very inspiring sight to see those men, who have been armed with nothing but the hoe for thousands of years in their struggle with nature, driving, with considerable success, 140 horsepower tractors. We are arming them with the latest weapons of agriculture, and we cannot do that if we break up the whole area into tiny peasant plots and let the African fend for himself.
I now come to the speech of the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, and I shall group together some of the points he made in putting my argument before the Committee. First, I must deny very specifically his statement that the scheme which is for the production of oils and fats, has somehow broken down or altered out of recognition. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said the original scheme was to have three areas. The scheme has three areas. It is true they are all in Tanganyika.

Captain Crookshank: Quite different.

Mr. Strachey: Is it different? It is true that they are 400 miles apart, and in the same climatic conditions, but though there is a drought in the Central Province there is no drought in the


Southern Province. Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman arguing that because the Southern and Central zones happen to be in Tanganyika that proves that the drought risk is not minimised by having the scheme over three areas?
I should like to give the House acreage figures as they stand today in connection with the progress of the scheme. In Kongwa, 106,000 acres of bush have been flattened. All the work on those acres is not complete but, with the discount which I will mention in a moment, that area will be available next year. Of the 106,000 acres, some 81,000 will be put under the plough—these are the present estimates of the Corporation. There are acres devoted to native villages, camps and roads and suchlike, and about 7,000 acres will be put down to grass and used at this stage simply as a domestic stock farm for the production of meat and milk for those engaged on the scheme. These 7,000 acres have proved less suitable for cereal production or any form of ploughed cultivation.

Mr. Stanley: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the 81,000 acres will be cropped. Is there a cropping plan?

Mr. Strachey: I should not like to give the Committee the figures yet. They will not have to put their seed into the ground until the end of the year, but I think their policy will prove to be that the great majority of the new acres will go to sunflower in the first year. Professor Phillips has come to the strong conclusion that sunflower is the best crop for breaking in the land during the first year. It is proposed to put the great majority of the new acres to sunflower, and that will apply to the Western area. Twenty thousand acres there will be available for cropping next year; it is hoped to cultivate about 19,000 acres. In the Southern Province it is hoped to clear about 2,000 acres which will, again, be put under crop at the end of this year.
These are areas which are being cleared now and will be sown next year. For next year there are plans for the clearance of additional acres which will be sown at the end of 1950. In Kongwa, there will be no new acres because 100,000 acres there completes the development there. Large quantities of mechanical equipment at Kongwa can and will

be moved partly to Urambo and partly to the Southern Province as needed. In Urambo it is proposed to clear 70,000 acres, but in the south the target has not yet been settled. I think they are very wise in that because they cannot really begin large-scale clearance in the south until the railway reaches the groundnut area, and that will not be until the end of the year. It is going steadily forward, and has reached a place called Nanganga, some 30 miles from the area, and it is confidentially expected that it will be through to the groundnut area by the end of the year. That is the point at which it becomes really possible to get to work on land clearance in the south. I was asked about the port. That will not be available for deep water berths until the end of 1950, or at the beginning of 1951, but they have been able to develop harbours at Mkwaya, which are making it possible to bring in new equipment, which goes up the railway.
I do not know whether the House feels that the figures I have just given are large or small. Certainly, they seem small if compared with the rate of progress in the White Paper but, on the other hand, when anyone sees what has been done, on the spot, the figures seem very large indeed. It is a most remarkable sight to see 100,000 acres of flattened bush; it is a very remarkable achievement on the part of the men who have done the work. I told the House on 14th March that 50,000 acres under crop was an area equal to a strip of land one mile wide and extending from this House to Portsmouth. The area at Kongwa alone, 100,000 acres—80,000 of which will be under crop next year and another 20,000 at Urambo—will be equal to such a strip of land two miles wide from this House to Portsmouth. That is a arge area to have brought into cultivon, whatever the prospects with whiche may compare it.
I want to deal now with the point made by a number of hon. Members: whether the scheme was not changing its character completely, was no longer anything to do with the production of oils and fats and feedingstuffs and was becoming simply a Colonial development scheme.

Mr. Jennings: The right hon. Gentleman has told us about production and the area covered. Can he say how many million pounds this scheme will cost British taxpayers?

Mr. Strachey: I have already given the figure. To date it is £25 million.

Mr. Jennings: What is the total cost?

Mr. Strachey: I gave the figure on 14th March, when I said that the total cost up to then was likely to be doubled.

Mr. Jennings: The House has a right to know.

Mr. Strachey: I was dealing with the contrast sought to be drawn between the scheme as a productive enterprise and colonial development. I put it to the House, with all the emphasis I can, that that is a completely false contrast. This is a great scheme of colonial development because it is a great productive enterprise. It must be such an enterprise and it will produce oils and fats and other foodstuffs. But I am convinced that we shall not succeed with colonial development—and I know that I can speak for all my colleagues—unless we found that development on productive enterprise. That has not always been done in the past, and it is suggested that it should not be done now.
I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Eddisbury that the expenditure of public money would be better confined to building roads, dams, providing water supplies and the like, and that then private enterprisers should come in and do the cultivation. I do not think that that is a good idea. I do not think that the private enterprisers are there, or are available. I do not think that the development of Africa would actually take place in that way irrespective of whether it would be a good or bad thing. Therefore, I think we are making a great mistake if we think there is any conflict whatever between the productivity enterprise and the development of the capital works.
The public works, roads, water supplies, railways, ports, all these things, are barren unless they lead to some great productive enterprise. It is all very well having a road, but it is of no use unless it leads somewhere. It is all very well having a railway, but it is useless unless it leads to some great area of production, and that has been the experience in colonial development. Therefore not only this scheme, but all schemes of the Colonial Development Corporation from the outset are based on great productive

enterprises and it is that which distinguishes them from many schemes in the past, and which is of their essence.

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister say where there have been schemes in the past under which railways have been built that went nowhere?

Mr. Strachey: There have been sad instances where railways have been built and no traffic has been available. Those schemes are rather sad monuments—there is one as a matter of fact in Tanganyika—to what happens unless the productive side is kept, at any rate, equal with the general colonial development. Therefore I strongly deprecate the idea that there is the slightest conflict between these two aspects of the scheme.
When I have said that, let me add that the productive side of the scheme is not the only one. As I attempted to stress in my speech on 14th March, we regard the general development of Africa as one of the great advantages and dividends which the scheme will bring in. I have been pressed about the business side of this scheme and I have been asked whether the expenditure of this public money will yield a profitable dividend. I am bound to say—I have said it before and it caused annoyance but it is the fact and I must say it again—that the financial return in the narrow sense on this money will largely depend on the price of oils and fats during the next ten years. All we can say about that is that the price of oils and fats so far is very much higher than any prediction made at the beginning of this scheme. The actual financial return will depend on other things but that is the biggest single factor on which it will depend.
But are we to judge this or any other scheme simply and solely upon the return in the narrowest financial sense? If we had judged great enterprises in that way in the past very few of them would have been attempted at all, and those that were, almost without exception, would have had to be written off as failures. I would give the House one or two examples. A homely one is the Manchester Ship Canal. I have looked up the facts and figures. It cost £20 million; it was opened in 1894, and for the first 21 years of its existence it paid no interest or dividend on the money


invested at all. Are we to say because of that that the Manchester Ship Canal was a great mistake and ought never to have been built; that the whole thing should have been written off as a wild-cat scheme?

Mr. Osborne: Is not the Minister aware that the 5 per cent. non-cumulative preference share in the Manchester Ship Canal is now getting the full 5 per cent. dividend today to which it was entitled?

Mr. Strachey: Yes it is today, but we are not now in the first 21 years of its existence.

Mr. Osborne: But the argument of the Minister has been all though that for the first few years any great enterprise—as the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) said—must be non-productive, and surely the Minister is using the example of the Manchester Ship Canal in the same way.

Mr. Strachey: I am making that precise point. For 21 years the Manchester Ship Canal on that narrow and quite wrong criterion was totally unproductive.
Let me give another example from Tanganyika which is a purely private enterprise, not because one wishes to show that the enterprise will be a failure, but to show that delays and set-backs are not a unique characteristic of public enterprises. I am referring to the lead mining enterprise of the Union Corporation, of which the right hon Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) is the chairman. I propose to read from their report of their experiences in Tanganyika, because they are a neighbour of the groundnuts scheme; the site of their operations is further up the Central Railway Line. This is contained in the report of the Corporation on its position in East Africa:
The Corporation reports that owing to unforeseeable and unavoidable delays and difficulties in the delivery of equipment and supplies, the time required to establish the potentialities of the area is likely to prove longer than was originally contemplated.
Then the report goes on to call attention to "certain extravagant unofficial reports" which were without foundation. I do not believe that these delays and difficulties will prevent the enterprise of the right hon. Gentleman from being a most useful and fruitful one and, let us hope, a profitable one. But it is exactly

the same delays and difficulties experienced by him which are made so much of, so very much of, in the case of the larger enterprise of the groundnuts scheme.

Mr. Stanley: May I ask the Minister how many of those delays and difficulties were caused by the fact that priorities in transport and port facilities were in fact given to his scheme?

Mr. Strachey: Not at all, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth would not say so, if he were here.
Finally, I would cite the example of the very biggest and greatest of all these public enterprises and one which is not altogether incomparable to the groundnuts scheme, the great Tennessee Valley Authority. The Tennessee Valley Authority has had to spend—right hon. Gentlemen opposite would call it a loss—no less than £175 million, and no initial dividend of any kind was obtained by the United States Federal Treasury for that amount. It has been put into the scheme simply for the dividend in the wider sense of the word which the expenditure of that very great sum of money would produce.
Let me quote Mr. Lilienthal, the chairman of the Corporation, who was no doubt defending himself before a Congressional Committee, which would be not unlike the present occasion. He said:
Are the expenditures for this development worth their cost to the country? There is, of course, no way of settling the question by statistical proof. You must look at the valley, appraise what the expenditure of these funds has done in increasing the productivity of the region and of the nation. You must look at the effect of the growing strength and new vitality of the valley on the total strength of the whole country in war and peace. This is not a question that accountants or financial experts can answer for us. Whether the overall results in this region are worth what they have cost is something the citizen must answer for himself as a matter not of arithmetic but of the highest public policy.
I believe that that passage mutatis mutandis is typical of the groundnuts scheme.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Nonsense.

Mr. Strachey: We must look at the valley, in this case the Lukeledi Valley, and up that valley a railway is creeping.


At the seaward end of it a port is being built. Further up the valley, there are the Songea coalfields, beyond them is Lake Nyasa and then the Rhodesian railway system. The development of that valley which is a much bigger project than the groundnut scheme, but which would not have been begun but for the groundnut scheme and for which certainly the groundnut scheme acted as the catalyst, is of great importance.
I believe that the general dividend for Africa and this country—and there is no conflict in advantage between one and the

other—which we have obtained from that development as well as the development in the central province, will show that the money which we have spent, which we are spending and which we shall spend, will give us in the wider sense one of the highest dividends brought by any outlay of public money which this or any other Government have entered into for this country.

Question put, "That £239,580,863 stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 111.

Division No. 245.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kendall, W. D.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.


Alpass, J. H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Delargy, H. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.


Attewell H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Kirby, B. V.


Austin, H. Lewis
Dye, S.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lavers, S.


Ayles, W. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Bacon, Miss A.
Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Balfour, A.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lipson, D. L.


Barstow, P. G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.


Barton, C.
Ewart, R.
Longden, F.


Battley, J. R.
Farthing, W. J.
Lyne, A. W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fernyhough, E.
McAdam, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Follick, M.
Mack, J. D.


Benson, G.
Forman, J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Berry, H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S.


Beswick, F.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McLeavy, F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)


Bing, G. H. C.
Gibson, C. W.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Binns, J.
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blackburn, A. R.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gooch, E. G.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Blyton, W. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Bottomley, A. G.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Mellish, R. J.


Bowden, H. W.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Grenfell, D. R.
Mikardo, Ian


Bramall, E. A.
Grey, C. F.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Brock, D. (Halifax)
Grierson, E.
Mitchison, G. R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morley, R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Burden, T. W.
Guy, W. H.
Mort, D. L.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Nally, W.


Callaghan, James
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss H.
Oldfield, W. H.


Chater, D.
Hobson, C. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holman, P.
Orbach, M.


Cluse, W. S.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Cobb, F. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Coldrick, W.
Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, T. C.


Collindridge, F.
Hoy, J.
Parkin, B. T.


Collins, V. J.
Hubbard, T.
Pearson, A.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Cooper, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, M. Philips


Daggar, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.


Daines, P.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Janner, B.
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ranger, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnston, D. H.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Reeves, J.




Reid, T. (Swindon)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Richards, R.
Stokes, R. R.
Weitzman, D.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Stross, Dr. B.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Stubbs, A. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Swingler, S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wigg, George


Royle, C.
Symonds, A. L.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Segal, Dr. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Sharp, Granville
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Shurmer, P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Simmons, C. J.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Skeffington, A. M.
Timmons, J.
Willis, E.


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Titterington, M. F.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Skinnard, F. W.
Tolley, L.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wise, Major F. J.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Vernon, Major W. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Viant, S. P.
Yates, V. F.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Walker, G. H.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Snow, J. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)



Sorensen, R. W.
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sparks, J. A.
Watkins, T. E.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Steele, T.
Watson, W. M.
Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Glyn, Sir R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gridley, Sir A.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Odey, G. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Orr-Ewing. I. L.


Barlow, Sir J.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Osborne, C.


Baxter, A. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Birch, Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pickthorn, K.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hollis, M. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Bowen, R.
Hurd, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jennings, R.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. R.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Butcher, H. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ropner, Col. L.


Carson, E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Challen, C.
Linstead, H. N.
Scott, Lord W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Low, A. R. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McFarlane, C. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Walker-Smith, D.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marples, A. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
York, C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Molson, A. H. E.



Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gammans, L. D.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Colonel Wheatley and




Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the

Committee in the said Resolution."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

7.1 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: We now leave tropical Africa and come back to the green fields of England. I could not help feeling rather hungry during the concluding passages of the speech of the Minister of Food, especially when I thought of those vast sums of money being spent on places like the Tennessee Valley, and what a lovely place England would be if we had all that money to spend here in developing our agricultural industry.
My hon. and right hon. Friends and I put down this Vote for discussion today because we thought it would be a good opportunity for the Minister of Agriculture to tell the House and the country to what extent the agricultural industry is making a contribution to the economic crisis. Since taking this decision, the whole position has been changed by a broadcast speech made by the Minister last Thursday in the Home Service and entitled "On Your Farm," which dealt with the agricultural expansion programme and the livestock feedingstuffs position. I think it is true to say that the Minister's broadcast came as a profound shock, and the only conclusion to which we could come on that broadcast was that the Government, in their anxiety to escape responsibility for the economic position of our country, are looking round for scapegoats, and that last week it was the agricultural industry which was picked out as the target. The Minister, in fact, used very strong language in his broadcast. Referring specifically to the agricultural expansion programme, he said:
It is a crisis in our plans and our hopes for agriculture, and I have to tell you now—
and he was speaking to the farmers—
—that we are in grave danger of failing in our task.
The whole tone of this broadcast implied that the industry was not playing its part, and this attack by the Minister upon those engaged in the industry, who have not relaxed their efforts in ten arduous years, is bitterly resented by the men and women who have worked so hard and who have made such a great contribution both to our war effort and our national economic recovery. In spite of those efforts, they are now told that there is an agricultural crisis, and that the agricultural

programme is in jeopardy, while it is further implied that it is their fault.
This evening, I want to examine the charges which the Minister made, and to try to show to the House that it is not the industry so much as the Government which is to blame for the present position. When I say that, I wish also to say that the industry is very much alive to its responsibilities, and that anything I have to say will not be said in any sense of complacency, because it is realised that there is much more to be done in this industry throughout the country.
Today, the industry is being asked to advance on three fronts simultaneously. It is being asked to increase the numbers of livestock—and we all agree with that—to produce more food for human consumption, and also to produce more food for feedingstuffs for the livestock population. These three things together would have been possible if the Government had implemented the specific promise which they made on the introduction of their programme in August, 1947, when the Lord President of the Council, addressing the chairmen of county agricultural executive committees on the expansion programme, used these words, which have been quoted before:
Large increases of feedingstuffs must come from imports, and even scarce dollars will be spent on all that is obtainable, since this operation must lead to ultimate dollar savings.
I shall refer to the feedingstuffs position in detail in a few moments, but there is one further general observation I would like to make.
It has never been, and I hope it never will be British farming policy to "mine" the fertility of the land, and it must be remembered that, at the beginning of the war, the land of this country was full of stored-up fertility. When we had a common enemy at our gates, we had to draw heavily on this fertility during those war years. That cannot go on for ever. The Minister will agree that one cannot run a five furlong race in the same manner as a two and a half miles race. Today the land is feeling the effect of that period, and it is absolutely vital, taking the long view, that the laws of good husbandry must be applied if we are to obtain the maximum production from our soil over a long period. To expand much further our cereal acreage, while it


may help as a purely temporary measure to relieve our economic position, would be folly in the long run, and, as the Minister admitted in his broadcast, we are dealing today with a long-term problem. That is why we on this side of the House resent so profoundly the word "crisis" which was used by the Minister. One would expect "crises" to pass, but the need to grow more food at home is no passing fancy. It will remain for a long time to come.
It is the policy of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to secure the steady efficiency and economic expansion of home agriculture in order that it may produce at least half as much again as it produced immediately before the war. The Government have been circulating recently in the United States a publication entitled "Britain Speeds the Plough." I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture has seen it. It is an admirable document, which describes the efforts of our agricultural industry in terms very different from those of the Minister's broadcast on Thursday of last week. It is published under the auspices of the British Information Services, and it talks about the great contribution made by British farmers today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But only the other day the Minister was abusing everything that the industry did. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
There is one very important discrepancy here which I hope the Minister will correct. In the concluding chapter of this booklet are the following words:
In addition to the Agriculture Act, Britain's farmers have a short-term programme for producing more crops and livestock.
Are the Government genuine in believing that their policy is long-term, or is it just a short-term expedient? It is very important that we should get that matter cleared up. In this Government publication, it is stated that they consider it to be a short-term policy.
Now I turn to the specific charges made in the Minister's broadcast. In my view, the most serious was that insufficient attention has been paid to the conservation of grass. It is very difficult to get the correct figures, but there are two commodities concerning which we can see what has happened in recent years. One is silage and the other is dried grass. The House will be interested to know

that, as far as silage is concerned, this year's estimate of 1,250,000 tons is nearly twice what the production was last year, when it was 725,000 tons, and four times what it was in 1947, when it was only 328,000 tons.

Mr. Alpass: What about what it was in 1938?

Sir T. Dugdale: As the hon. Member knows quite well, silage is a new development. I consider that those figures show quite definitely that the industry have made great progress in the production of silage since the announcement of the programme in 1947.

Mr. Alpass: Assisted by the Government.

Sir T. Dugdale: Now let us take dried grass as another example. The output of dried grass has been gradually but surely increasing from 60,000 tons in 1947 to 110,000 tons in 1948. It is estimated that this year the production should reach 180,000 tons. I think it is true to say that, with more experience of the new methods of dealing with grass, the quality is also improving. I believe that this expansion will continue to increase, Whilst we are in no way complacent about this matter, I think the House must agree that those figures are a complete answer to the implied charge that insufficient attention has been paid by farmers to the conservation of grass.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I hate to intervene while the hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking, but I do not know whether he read my broadcast or not.

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, I did.

Mr. T. Williams: I never complained about not reaching targets in regard to either silage or dried grass. Indeed, I stated that they were going on very nicely.

Sir T. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman did not complain about not reaching the targets for those commodities, but he did imply that insufficient attention has been paid to the conservation of grassland, and I think that will be borne out by anybody who reads the broadcast.
I will now turn to livestock. I agree that the Minister did not blame the


producers of livestock, but it will interest the House to note that in spite of the feedingstuffs muddle—and I think that everybody on all sides agrees with that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Before I sit down I shall be surprised if I do not convince the most dense people by the figures I shall give that there has been a muddle. As I was saying, in spite of the feedingstuffs muddle, the degree of self-sufficiency achieved on our farms has been very remarkable, and very substantial increases have been made in the number of dairy cattle, pigs and poultry.
I had intended to give the House some figures, but as we started late I will give only those that deal with fowls for Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland. In March, 1947, there were 32,283,000 fowls and in March, 1949, there were 49,525,000—a very large increase. Those figures can be found in the digest of statistics for June, 1949, table 102. There has also been an increase in other livestock products, and this has been done by the farmers in spite of the difficulty of feedingstuffs.
Now I turn to what the Minister said about tillage acreage, and there, I think, he was most unfair to the producers. He talked about the wheat acreage this year having been missed by 500,000 acres and the feed grains by 150,000 acres. As far as wheat is concerned, the Minister knows perfectly well that the lateness of last year's harvest, the result of the wet autumn, was responsible for the shortfall in the winter wheat. When we get a situation of that sort, it is seldom possible to make up the whole of the autumn-sown deficiency in the spring of the year. The Minister really cannot blame the farmers for the weather of last autumn.
As far as grass and coarse grain are concerned, the position is more difficult, and I ask the Minister whether I am right in calculating that the 150,000 acres of which he said we were short represent only about 2½ per cent. of the target. If it is only 2½ per cent., then I think there will be no difficulty in the years to come to catch up on that figure. The Minister seemed to imply that it was extremely serious, whereas, if we are within 2½ per cent. of our target figure, that, I think the House will agree, is reasonably satisfactory. I hope I have said enough

to show that the attack of the Minister of Agriculture upon the farmers was entirely unjustified.
With regard to the part played by the Government, I am afraid that I must here repeat what I said in this House on a previous occasion. Our view is that the most economical contribution which agriculture can make at the present time is an increase in livestock production based, if not to the extent they were before the war, at any rate upon a proportion of imported feedingstuffs. On the question of feedingstuffs, we believe—hon. Members opposite may take a different view—that the Government's record has been deplorable. A correct solution of this problem is not only the cornerstone of the agricultural production policy, but it would also do a lot to solve our dollar deficit today.
At this point, I must remind the House of the statement made by the Minister of Food on 12th July, 1948, which is still unanswered, when he told the House that it was three times as expensive to produce meat at home on imported feedingstuffs as it was to buy it abroad. A week later, I had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and, on 20th July, 1948, I submitted a detailed argument to this House to prove that the Minister of Food was wrong. The Minister of Agriculture, while unable to substantiate his colleague's extraordinary calculations, used these words. Referring to my statement to the House on that day, he said:
I will submit his case"—
referring to what I had said—
to the Minister of Food, and perhaps the answer may come next year on the Supply Day for the Ministry of Food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 250.]
Time went on, and we came to the appropriate Supply Day on 5th April. Perhaps the House will recollect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) opened the Debate and he again asked the Minister of Food for an explanation of his statement, but his request was not answered, and we still await an answer.
Since then, to complete my argument, a further set of facts have arisen which prove that the statement was completely false. If the Government really believe that statement, of course, we shall never get any feedingstuffs in any quantity. Why


should we, if we really believe the statement made by the Minister of Food? The Economic Survey of 1947 said specifically that £1,000 worth of feedingstuffs would save nearly £2,000 worth of imports of livestock products. The House will agree that if the Minister of Food had been right in his statement of 12th July, 1948, it would have meant that between March, 1947, and July, 1948, the situation had so changed that it had become six times as expensive to produce meat at home. That is obviously fantastic. I commend these arguments once again to the Government, although personally I am convinced that the Ministry of Agriculture really agree with us on this argument.
Our policy is quite clear on this matter. We believe that we should use some of the Marshall Aid dollars to obtain an immediate supply of coarse grains. It is set out in writing, and that is the considered view of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I would at this point draw the attention of the House to the recent Report of the Economic Co-operation Administration on 15th June this year which sets out exactly what the Marshall Aid countries spent up to 31st May, 1949, on various commodities. They spent 111 million dollars on meat, 101 million dollars on dairy produce, and 145 million dollars on coarse grains, and of these sums the United Kingdom spent just over 79 million dollars on meat and 64 million dollars on dairy produce, but not one dollar at all on coarse grains.
It might interest the House to know how some of those amounts were distributed. To take an example, France spent 24 million dollars on coarse grains and Denmark spent over 12 million dollars on coarse grains. The House must realise that these countries then produce livestock fed on Marshall Aid dollars, which in due course of time will come into our market, and our farmers will be told that they are inefficient because they cannot produce the livestock here, when they have not been given the feedingstuffs. There is a real danger here, and it is one of which I must ask the Minister to take note.
Let me put it in another way. If we had, in fact, spent 144 million dollars, which we have spent on meat and dairy produce, on maize at between 140 cents a bushel, which is the present United

States price, and 200 cents a bushel, which is last year's price, we could have bought 2 million tons of maize. That happens to be exactly the quantity that the National Farmers' Union asked for in May of this year, when they calculated that with that amount of maize the industry could produce an additional three ounces of fresh pork per week on the ration for the whole population. I am not suggesting that we could have spent it all like that, but the fact remains that if we had spent our dollars in that way, that is the contribution which we could have made to pig meat in this country.
Turning from the Marshall Aid countries, I should like for a few moments to discuss the recent Anglo-Argentine trade agreement. I understand that we are to spend about £20 million on maize in the Argentine at the current price of £17 a ton, which would buy us rather less than the l¼ million tons we bought last year. I ask the Minister to check those figures and let me know if I am accurate. If I am, I consider that we ought to buy more maize from the Argentine, because I believe the maize is there. Then I ask the Minister if, with his colleagues, he has arranged to give priority to imports of maize and coarse grains from the Argentine, because another problem comes into this particular negotiation, apart altogether from agriculture. I understand that the landed price of coal which we are sending from here to the Argentine cannot be fixed at a reasonable price unless the shippers can be sure of return cargoes of maize or other cereals, so as to reduce the freight rates on the outward run.
Unless some co-ordinated action is taken quickly we may again see maize being burned in locomotives in the Argentine because they will be unable to pay the high cost of our coal. It happened before, and it might happen again. In ships which take the coal the only suitable return cargo is coarse grains or maize. Does it not seem mad, to put it at the lowest? We want the maize for our livestock. The Argentine want the coal, and because there is no co-ordination between Government Departments we are not getting the maize, and the exporters are having great difficulty in sending out the coal at an economic price. I hope the Minister will inform the House


that he will at least look into that point and take such action as may be necessary to put the matter right.

Mr. Alpass: From where does the hon. and gallant Gentleman get the information on which he bases that statement?

Sir T. Dugdale: I have very excellent facts on which to base that statement from the people who are trying to export coal.
I now turn to another valuable form of feedingstuffs, and that is milling offals. I do not want to deal at great length with this subject, but I would point out that a reduction in the extraction rate from 85 per cent. to 82½ per cent. of home produced wheat would provide approximately an extra 150,000 tons of wheat offals. That is only from 85 per cent. to 82½ per cent. I do not ask for a very large reduction, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) earlier in the week, because I know that the medical authorities take an interest in this matter, and the argument has been used that the medical authorities might be opposed to such a reduction. I do not think that is true about the figures I have given, however, because at the post-war loaf conference, which was held in October, 1945, the Medical Research Council, the Chief Medical Office of Health and the medical advisers to the Ministry of Food were in agreement that the standards of nutrients required in our bread are to be found in a loaf made from 80 per cent. extraction. I, therefore, put this matter to the Minister for further examination. If we got that extraction rate reduced, it would be a major contribution to our feeding-stuffs position.
I was going to refer to the possibility of doing something in conjunction with our Canadian friends to see whether we could not make some arrangements by which we did not import so much flour from them, so that we would have the benefit of the milling offals if we milled it ourselves. Time is getting on, however, and I think I have said enough to convince the House that if the Government as a whole—and I am not blaming the Minister of Agriculture entirely—had tackled this problem in a more resolute manner, our position would have been very different today and our agricultural expansion programme would have been

well on the way to achievement. I believe that to be profoundly true.
There is one other aspect of this problem which I must mention. It is in an entirely different category, but I think the Government are equally to blame. In the horticultural industry confidence has been completely destroyed by the deliberate policy of glutting the market with imports exactly at the moment when our own crops are being harvested. How can our horticulturalists believe that the Government are in earnest and that the nation desires the products of their labours when they see many fields of vegetables ploughed in, as they were during last year, while more and more vegetables are being brought from other countries? The House should realise that we are dependent upon home horticultural production for three-quarters of our total requirements. Where, and at what price, can this production be found abroad if our own industry is made so unremunerative that our growers are forced out of business? I ask the Minister to give this his serious consideration.
I think I have said enough to convince the House that it is the Government and not the industry who are at fault at the present time. I am certain I shall have hon. Members on all sides of the House with me when I say that they have a real personal affection for the present Minister of Agriculture. But we are becoming increasingly dismayed at his manifest incapacity to deal with the problems of increased production, either through his control of the county agricultural committees, which should be steering, guiding and helping farmers in their cropping plans, or through his influence with his colleagues inside and outside the Cabinet. They seem to combine to thwart his policy rather than to co-ordinate with each other towards its achievement.
I urge the Minister to stop talking about the crisis in agriculture and, in the months ahead to go forth into the country, having equipped himself with a team of personal liaison officers, to keep him in touch with the work of the county committees. In many counties today the team work and drive which was so marked during the war period under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), and which is equally essential


at the present time, is very sadly lacking. The county committees are doing their best. They are crying out for a lead and that lead can come only from the Minister of Agriculture himself. I hope the Minister will not fail the country in his duties during the next few months.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Dye: After listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) I am left wondering a little why he has spoken at all. He has chided the Minister for attacking agriculture. I thought it was the duty of any Minister to speak frankly to the people with whom he is most concerned. I sat in my own home on Thursday of last week and listened to the Minister's broadcast. I sat there as a farmer because I wanted to know what he had to say and I wanted to be free in my own mind to let his speech make its own impression upon me, as it would upon any other farmer. The impression which it made was that something in the development of our agricultural programme was not going right. Just what is it?
We have heard this agricultural programme and we have discussed it in this House, and I do not remember hon. Members opposite ever saying that it was a bad programme or that there was anything wrong with it. With the development of our agriculture, of our crops and our stock over a five-year period it was a good programme to put before the country. What do the returns of 4th June reveal? They reveal that the number of pigs and poultry and other stock has inclined to outstrip the programme but, on the other hand, the crops of corn—wheat and oats and barley—most of which would be used for feeding the stock, have fallen behind. Is not that then the element of crisis which we see in the present position? Should not then the Minister speak frankly to all the farmers and say, "Look here; this cannot go on. You are doing very well in producing more cattle, poultry, pigs and sheep according to our estimates and according to our programme, but if we are to feed them and fatten them we must have more feedingstuffs from our own country."
It was known when the programme was announced in 1947 that we should

have difficulties from year to year in the amount of feedingstuffs that we could import. I have been brought up in agriculture, and in my younger days I have seen hundreds of thousands of tons of cotton cake, linseed cake, groundnut cake and other feedingstuffs brought into this country. Ever since the war we have known quite well that these things would not be available in anything like the quantities; that they would be available in only a fractional amount of what we received in the early part of this century.
If we are to have alternative feedingstuffs we must look to our own fields and our own grassland and to the development, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond referred, of silage and drying grass as one of the chief means in making up the deficiency in imported feedingstuffs. On that side I do not think there is anything to grumble about. But unless we are going to have home grown wheat, our poultry, quite clearly, will not be there. The same argument applies to pigs. Nothing would be more regrettable than anything that would put a stop to the rapid development of the production of pigs and poultry in this country and the fattening of more cattle.
So I think the Minister was wise in going to the microphone to tell the whole agricultural community what he had in mind, and in going later to the leaders of the National Farmers' Union to have a frank talk with them about it. I hope that he will take all sections of the agricultural community into his confidence, the workers, the farmers, and such owners as there are left to us. There are not so many as there used to be, I believe.

Brigadier Peto: There are more.

Mr. Dye: There are more, are there? If there are more, then they are also cultivators of the land, and, therefore, they are not landlords letting their land to other people. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me a point. The landlords are decreasing in number, and the number of farmer owners has increased. I include the latter as farmers. That is a development which I should have thought hon. Members opposite would have welcomed. It has been going on faster under this Socialist Government


than it did under Tory Governments. Given a chance, there is no doubt that we shall make more rapid headway.
To return to my point, I think that that is the nature of the crisis, and I hope that everyone in the industry, every person with authority and responsibility, will leave out of the discussion that element of party desire to exploit the present position with an eye upon the next Election. It may be that we shall have to make some changes, and in that respect one can, perhaps, refer to the latest statement that has been made by the party opposite, which has now put its policy before the country.

Mr. Alpass: It's what?

Mr. Dye: Well, it is a policy. It is described as a policy. There is one item with which I should like to deal because of what happened in the House earlier today. The document says:
A Conservative Government will give the British farmer first place in the home market, and guaranteed prices and markets for the food he can produce up to our general target in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.
I do not know whether the party opposite has made that statement on the basis of our latest experience of guaranteed prices. We have guaranteed prices for potatoes, early potatoes and main crop potatoes. When I ventured earlier today to suggest that we should no longer guarantee the price of early potatoes hon. Members opposite said, "Come over here." But their policy is to extend the system of guaranteed prices, not to limit it.
I was bold enough to ask for a move away from the guaranteed prices for early potatoes because I do not think it is possible for a year ahead—or even, for that matter, for a month ahead—to determine how the supply of new potatoes will go on the market. If, therefore, we have a fixed and rigid system of guaranteed prices for potatoes, starting at say £30 a ton, and each week decreasing by stages, either weekly or at four-day intervals, then that price will determine the number of potatoes which are lifted. This year the guaranteed prices the producers were receiving caused lifting faster than the consumer could consume the potatoes at the fixed price.
That is where, it seems to me, a mistake was made. If there had been a system that would have allowed the price of the potatoes to come down to the consumer, then we should not have had a large proportion of our early potatoes sold for stock feeding at about £2 a ton, and at the same time our main crop of potatoes practically standing still as a growing crop owing to the drought—so indicating the possibility of a smaller crop for the winter and spring months—and instead of lifting our early potatoes, as there was encouragement to do. I think had there been a fall in prices in potatoes because of a much heavier yield farmers would have got as much money as they did because of the greater consumption there would have been during that period. When, therefore, I did suggest that there should be a limiting of the guaranteed prices to the main crop of potatoes, and to make an alteration so far as new potatoes were concerned, hon. Gentlemen opposite said, "Come over here."

Mr. York: I do think that as the hon. Member is making such a song and dance about this he ought to get his facts right, at least. What we were saying was that arrangements for transport and sale would be left in the hands of private enterprise, and we thought that that was thoroughly explained in the statement.

Mr. Dye: I say that sale and distribution of the crop from the producer to the consumer should be left, because it is the kind of crop for which the system of guaranteed prices months ahead is not suitable. We could have a bigger acreage and a heavier crop, and there is no mechanism working that will either keep back a big crop or induce consumers to buy greater quantities.
We must review our agricultural policy from time to time as it operates with a view to checking any difficulty that may arise. I think we are on very firm ground when we want guaranteed prices for our principal products, and I think it is also true we should keep them going, but we must see that we do not extend the policy to products for which it is not suitable. Therefore, I do think that we should have regard to the changes brought about by weather and other conditions, and we must always be ready to adapt British agriculture to suit the needs of our country as we are both a nation producing


agricultural goods and a nation that imports them.
We need food for ou people and feedingstuffs for our livestock. Now hon. Members opposite are calling out for the importation of coarse grains from America, under Marshall Aid. Well, there is in the United States a surplus of soya beans and the money spent on them will be of much greater value to British agriculture than an increase of coarse grain, for it is the element contained in the soya bean that will help to improve the quality of our feedingstuffs. Therefore, when I read the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite made in different parts of the country telling the farmers that they could have the vast quantities of coarse grain under Marshall Aid and making comparisons with France and with other countries, I think they are trying to lead the people up the wrong path.
It is quite clear that France has had to import more feedingstuffs. If hon. Gentlemen will only read the latest N.F.U. Information Service, they will see the sorry plight into which French agriculture fell in 1948, as a result of which they had to have a greater quantity of coarse grains. I have recently been speaking with farmers from my constituency who have been on a visit to Holland, and there they saw the great efforts of the Dutch people; but everyone of them told me that the Dutch people—and they themselves when they were in Holland—had a lower standard of food than we have in this country. In spite of the fact that the Dutch are importing feeding-stuffs they are also compelled to export the food they produce.

Mr. Hurd: There is no rationing.

Mr. Dye: Of course, there is no rationing, but that does not make food abundant. It means that some people get very much more, and others much less. These farmers are not necessarily Socialists; I suppose most of them will vote Conservative; but they told me the truth as they saw it in Holland, and I therefore assert that the kind of story which is being put about, that Denmark, Holland, and France have derationed food and are having a much better time than the people of this country, is nothing but moonshine.

7.51 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I think that the House and the country owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), not only for having opened this Debate but for the terms in which he did so, and I earnestly hope that every farm worker and farmer will read his speech and study the figures and arguments he put before us. Because they were so adequate and so convincing, and because our time is so limited, I will confine my remarks to three or four topics, relying upon the figures given by my hon. Friend to sustain and support my argument.
I agree with him most profoundly that there is great dissatisfaction in the horticultural and market gardening side of the industry. The neglect of them has been a factor in causing anxiety amongst farmers and farm workers generally. It is clear to me that there ought to be an undertaking that the man who grows vegetables here will get a fair price, and sometimes a higher price, and not be undercut by foreign imports at the very moment of his best production. I earnestly hope that the Government will give such an undertaking. If not, we must wait for a change of Government, because it will certainly be the policy of the Conservative Party to do that.
I also wish to add my voice to what he said about pigs and poultry. In none of our agricultural Debates have I heard from the Government side an answer to the charge that the Government are neglecting the best economic action it is in their power to take to improve our production of pig meat and of eggs and poultry. Every 1,000 dollars used for importing feedingstuffs for pigs and poultry produces more than 1,000 dollars in food value. A simple policy of growing more of our own eggs and bacon would be not only agreeable to our housewives but profitable to our balance of trade and also to the farmers. I have heard no argument which convinces me that that is not true. The pig breeds very quickly, and affords one of the ways in which to make up for shortages of meat without having to wait many years for the meat to become available.
I must observe that there is still dissatisfaction amongst agricultural workers


about their rations. Workers in heavy industry receive special rations; and although I know that the farm workers also receive some special rations, on the whole they are worse off. They are even worse off than some who work in town, in factories and offices, who have admirable canteens which give them a full midday meal off the ration.
I want now to turn to housing. There is still not enough preference given to agricultural housing, and the Minister ought to strengthen his hand and his arguments vis-à-vis the Minister of Health, who presumably controls these priorities. Here I must make one or two brief observations about the taking of so much good agricultural land for housing purposes. I claim to be the first to appreciate the extraordinary difficulty that people in the small towns have about housing.
In a town of only 10,000 inhabitants in my constituency, there are still 450 families on the housing waiting list. I hesitate before saying anything which might delay for five minutes the provision of one house to help to reduce this waiting list, but the fact remains that it is no use our proclaiming a policy of leaving the best and most fertile land for farming instead of taking it for housing if, when a particular instance comes to our notice, we take the opposite view. It is like calling for economy and being unable to indicate any one item over which we could economise. I therefore say that each one of these cases that is brought to light, where the best land is being taken or is threatened to be taken for housing purposes, should be looked into.
At the moment, in my constituency there are plans to take over 100 acres of the very best agricultural land for housing. It is true that only 13 acres will be taken at once, and it is argued "Well, that is not very much, we may as well let it go through." Even the officials of the Minister of Agriculture do not see the danger of the next move, but deal only with that very limited point; they do not look at the plans and see that once these 13 acres go, a further 100 acres will go, and that the loss once made is irreparable. The merits of this particular case are very evenly balanced, and I propose to put them before the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health in the hope

that they will look into the matter again to see whether they cannot encourage the local authority to find alternative sites.
In that connection, I have just one complaint: that the Minister of Health is both judge and jury in his own case. It is his inspector who goes down to sit as a kind of tribunal to see fairplay between the various interests, and that seems to me to bias in advance a decision in favour in his view rather than that of the Minister of Agriculture. Put in a sentence, housing is one of the our direst needs, but it is no good housing people if they cannot be fed, and we are perilously near a situation in which we shall find difficulty in feeding our people.
Finally, I wish to comment on the general position in which we find ourselves. I do not want to say anything which may seem to be of a party political nature. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite want me to do so, I am very ready. The policy which has been pursued by this Government is not dissimilar from that set down by the Coalition Government; this Government are simply carrying on the policy introduced during the war years, which has now been running for about 10 years. I earnestly hope that the townspeople, who in the long run will benefit so much, will support and sustain this policy, so that it may become our recognised long-term policy, irrespective of party. However, we cannot for ever go on increasing the payments which are being guaranteed. We cannot go on for ever increasing production by increasing the guaranteed prices. We have to adjust the payments to give an incentive to the worst land.
If the nation is to get better agriculture in the long term, it must spend capital on the land itself rather than on the crops taken off the land. Some Government some time will have to look into this and see that money spent on the land brings a much greater long-term reward than money spent on the crops. That is not to say that appropriate guarantees must not be given and become part of our long-term policy, which is what I was pleading for earlier in my remarks. Whatever may be the merits of the groundnuts scheme, in the long-term it would have been much better for the country had the £25 million spent in Africa been spent in this country.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) made a very fair point in regard to the rations of agricultural workers. I suggest that the provision of mobile canteens should be encouraged in rural areas. I have seen a little of the work of mobile canteens in one or two parts of the country, and I confess that I rather like the idea, but I have not seen any extension of this service in the last year or so. It is something which might bring to the agricultural workers and to the farmers an added incentive. It would supplement the rations of the agricultural workers so that they could enjoy the same facilities as the industrial workers in our towns.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) that the production of livestock is outstripping our production of feeding-stuffs. I am sure that those who read the article by an outstanding expert, Mr. L. F. Easterbrook, in the "News Chronicle" last Friday, will have grasped that point very thoroughly. I agree with him that the problem is also a psychological one. There is a certain uneasiness among farmers of all grades, a certain lack of confidence and urgency in what is happening and what ought to be done. I hope that the Government, in spite of their very great difficulties in this and other fields, will take note once again of these complaints which some of us have to bring forward in agricultural Debates.
In some areas, particularly in Wales—I cannot speak in any Debate without mentioning that country—they feel there is a real threat to their security of tenure by the proposed activities of other Departments, the worst offender being, of course, the War Office. I do not want to expand this point, because it has already been made perfectly clear how the proposals of the War Office are upsetting farmers and actually causing a drop in production. The War Office exasperate our farmers by their apparent thoughtlessness in making huge demands for good farming land, sometimes half a county, and then after a period of suspense and expense withdrawing or whittling down their original demands.
Then we have the Forestry Commission—in my country they complain that the Forestry Commission plant more seeds of alarm than trees. Time and again they

threaten to evict good farmers from excellent farms. What my farming friends say—and this is from the point of view of bolstering up morale and providing inspiration for the efforts which must be made in the next year or two—is, and this comes from a letter I received his morning—
We agree we must have timber and land must be found for it, but why take perfectly good farms when there are plenty of tracts not suitable for farming but perfect for forestry, and, above all, why not publish a long-term policy of expansion with detailed maps in good time to prevent disturbance or the fear of disturbance, which is equally bad.
When a farmer is in fear of being disturbed in his farming, he feels a lack of confidence in going ahead and does not invest or work the farm in the way that it ought to be worked. If there must be land acquisition, we should have a clear policy on the subject.
Another thing which would rouse enthusiasm is a really bold policy for developing hill farming and marginal land. We had an extremely good Debate on marginal land a few weeks ago, when some very good suggestions were made. We must have a long-term policy for marginal land, and the mere fact that we commit ourselves to a substantial policy of development would have a really fine effect on the agricultural community generally. We know that from time to time the Government have done a great deal to assist marginal land production, but grants are not the final answer to the problem. What is wanted is capital expenditure, and in this connection I rather like the suggestion of agricultural credits put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon). That is certainly something which should be looked at seriously.
All this links up with encouraging a new spirit of adventure on the land. There is need also to encourage a new system of venturers. We need enterprise and we also need new entrepreneurs. Security of tenure is so great now that there is real difficulty even in changing tenancies. The result is that we are in danger of stratifying farm leadership. The young farm worker, or the son of the farmer, feels rather frustrated today because, with the prosperity and the new security of tenure around him, he finds that farms with vacant possession are at


a premium. If they are to be had at all, then a very high price has to be paid for them. I believe we ought to pursue a policy of creating marginal holdings on acquired land, and extending really generous credits to farm workers and sons of farmers who want to launch out on their own.

Mr. Alpass: That is the policy of the Government.

Mr. Roberts: I agree, but I am pleading for a new and fresh drive because I think the point ought to be stressed. In the circumstances it will prove exceedingly difficult to introduce new young occupiers if we carry on, as we ought, with security of tenure. We ought to get them in some other way, and I rather think that the encouragement of acquiring marginal land and land which has lapsed, might be the way out.
In conclusion, I must say that whenever I talk to farmers I find that never before in the history of the Ministry of Agriculture—and I do not know how far its history goes—has there been a Minister who has had the confidence of the rank-and-file farmer in so marked a manner as my right hon. Friend. I must also say that, by and large, I find there is a feeling among the farming community that the present Government are making an almost unprecedented effort to give a fair deal to the countryside.

8.14 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: The hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) has advocated bringing new blood on to the land. I would say that what is required is a stronger administrative lead. I do not agree that it would be a good thing to put farm workers on marginal land for a start; I would rather see them have a fair chance of a smallholding on good land. We want larger holdings, because the gross output per acre is naturally small from poor land.

Mr. G. Roberts: I certainly would not, as a general rule, urge that the young farm worker or the son of a farmer should start on marginal land unless it was found that he was deliberately keen and an applicant who ought to be encouraged to develop a difficult piece of land.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: All right, we will let that pass.
I urge the Minister to do everything in his power to stop opencast mining, particularly where it has been found impossible to restore the land. In my constituency several sites have been cast open and now that they have been cast together again there is no subsoil drainage, it is not good land, and nothing will grow. It was good land before. Not a lot of coal was obtained from the land, and it was obtained only at great expense.
The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) says we complain of the agricultural production programme. We do nothing of the sort. What we complain about is the Minister saying that it has not been carried out; it is his responsibility to see that it is carried out. In that responsibility he has failed, according to his own broadcast admission. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk also said that farmers have failed to produce coarse grains and crops that were required, but had in some cases outstripped the livestock programme. The simple answer is that farmers produce what pays them best. It is much more profitable to produce certain types of livestock than it is to grow crops which are not remunerative. Only next year, and for the first time, will wheat be a really paying crop to grow. It is one of the crops which have fallen short of the Minister's target. Beef, for instance, does not pay; it is produced in only small quantities.
I think there is a general feeling among farmers that they do not like being looked after by the Ministry or county agricultural executive committees or any other officials who interfere with their business. I therefore suggest that the Minister should think of new methods of getting the co-operation of the farmer. During the war these committees were set up and directions were given—they are still favoured in some quarters—to farmers. They heartily dislike them, and would not play if they were given directions today.
I should like to show the right hon. Gentleman how he might give farmers more incentive in the general management of production. I, personally, would like to see a considerable increase in producer marketing boards, in connection


with which we recently passed an Act. In some cases crops have been under-produced and in others over-produced. For instance, last year potatoes were over produced and the Ministry lost, I think, £10 million. This year early potatoes have been difficult to dispose of through the Ministry. Farmers have been unable to sell them when they were ready, or distribution was so badly organised that the crop went to waste. Indeed, potatoes are quite a joke among the farming community. I was talking to a farmer recently about the possibility of growing potatoes to feed pigs, and whether they would pay, and he said, "They would pay if I sold them to the Ministry at £9 a ton and bought them back at £3 per ton."
If we had producer marketing boards I should like to see them made responsible for the growing of a crop up to the target figure for which the guaranteed price was offered. Had that been the case last year, producers would have been responsible for growing potatoes up to whatever quantity the Government considered essential to avoid rationing, say 7 million tons. Further, I should like to see these boards institute a system of contract cropping. They might get producers to contract to produce quantities of crops at certain times, for instance, early potatoes. That might have saved trouble this year. These are merely suggestions which may want a lot of examination.

Mr. Collins: The hon. and gallant Member is speaking about farmers' criticisms of potato guarantees. Does he suggest that the guaranteed market for main crop potatoes should be abolished? I should like him to follow up his most interesting suggestions in regard to the alternatives. What would happen when it was a late crop year and the quantity of potatoes was much less than the quantity needed to avoid rationing?

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: There are a lot of disadvantages with this method which will occur to anyone immediately. [Laughter.] Let me answer the point. The point which I will take first is that I do not suggest that the guarantee should not be met. I said that the guarantee should be met up to the quantity which the Potato Board—this is only an instance, as it might be any other commodity board—undertook to produce,

and no more. I see no reason why the Potato Board should not make contracts with farmers to produce certain quantities, say 100 tons or 10 acres. They would then make every effort to grow that quantity.
It would be a far more satisfactory method in my opinion than trying to persuade a farmer to grow a certain acreage which he does not want to grow because he thinks it does not pay anyone. He is not particularly interested in the yield. I remember when we had direction being told to grow a certain acreage of wheat. I was only too pleased to make a light sowing of the wheat, being sure that what was still underneath would grow well. If I had undertaken to grow so much per acre it would have been a different story. I was asked what punishment I suggest for farmers who failed to fulfil their contracts. It is a difficult point. One might withdraw some of their feedingstuff allowance. I am only putting the point to show that the present system of exhortation through county committees is far from satisfactory. Farmers do not particularly like it.
The only thing which has any effect upon the quantity of crops is the old remedy of the price incentive. Farmers will grow all they can of what pays them best on their own land. A good instance of that is egg production. I know I shall become unpopular when I say that the price per egg promised this winter is quite the best thing in farming. Everyone I meet talks about how they are going to keep a certain number of hens regardless of whether the foodstuffs will be available. We might have good production: I am not prepared to say that there will not be a glut of eggs in the years to come. That is quite within the realms of possibility. There might also be a shortage of foodstuffs. There are great possibilities of development in the methods by which the industry is managed.
I should like to say a word about feedingstuffs. I feel it is time that we had more of them. We have had only something like one quarter of the amount of feedingstuffs from the Argentine compared with what we had before the war. There must be many other places where we could get fresh quantities. What is even more important than the total quan-


tity that we import is that better methods should be devised of distributing the feedingstuffs. Too much importance is still attached to the amount of livestock that particular farmers had in 1939. Newcomers to the industry get little or no encouragement. The Minister introduced a scheme last summer which allowed farmers to have a very small quantity of feedingstuffs according to their acreage. I should like to see farmers, who produce and deliver goods to the right packing station encouraged by being given feedingstuffs on a bigger scale according to what they produce. That is a system which will be a great encouragement to producers.
I hope no one will get up in this Debate and advocate, as I saw advocated in a farming paper the other day, the resumption of the direction of cropping, because if the Minister thinks that is advisable he will quickly find that the majority of farmers do not like it and will not tolerate it. There must be other ways in which the right hon. Gentleman can hit the target which he has set. When he tells the farmers they are failing, he must consider the administration as failing, too, and it is quite time he thought out new methods or else got out and gave someone else an opportunity to run the industry more successfully.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: Many points have been raised this evening which I should like to follow up, but if I did so, many who want to participate in the Debate would not be able to do so. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to two matters, one of which has been mentioned by several speakers and another which is of particular concern to my constituency and also of general concern to agriculture and to the community generally. Much has been said with regard to the feedingstuffs problem and its interest to the farming community cannot be denied.
At the same time, I feel that there is a tendency to smugness on the part of the Government and their critics in facing the position. On the one hand, the Government take up the attitude that nothing can be done to help the agricultural industry to get feedingstuffs, and on the other hand, there is the popular

cry that the agricultural industry must at all costs be supplied with greater quantities of feedingstuffs. The Government are advised to use Marshall Aid for that purpose and are told that more maize is available from Canada and we are asked why arrangements are not made for procuring far greater quantities of milled offal.
I feel there is too much dogma on both sides in this matter. There should be a reasoned approach both on the part of the Minister and on the part of the farmers. The Minister probably is making this reasoned approach, but whether he is getting proper backing from his colleagues in the Government is another matter. As far as Marshall Aid is concerned, while one must have a sense of responsibility in advocating the expenditure of dollars on anything these days, I feel that the Government should not adopt a closed door policy on the question of spending dollars on feedingstuffs. The same applies to the other two points I have already made. While irresponsible assertions can be made with regard to the possibility of certain new sources being explored, I am certain more might be done to assist the farmer in this direction.
A point which causes me anxiety is that the demand for feedingstuffs to date has been a demand at artificial prices. Recent price adjustments may result in reducing demands by small farmers; it is too early to know whether that is going to happen. If it does it will be another headache for the Ministry. I should like to hear more about the possibility of increasing the home production of feedingstuffs. To my mind a great deal more could be done in this direction. It would be presumptuous on my part to develop the theme as to whether there could be greater home production, but there is one area where more might be done and that is marginal land. I feel that a larger production of feedingstuffs could be carried out on marginal land if we had more ambitious schemes of assistance than we have at the moment. I was glad that the Minister of Agriculture heard the Minister of Food defending the groundnuts scheme today. I hope he will take what his colleague said to heart, and think of it in the terms of assistance which might be given to increase the production of feedingstuffs in our marginal land.
A comparison has been made—and I do not now think it is a comparison which will stand up to all the tests—in the earlier part of this evening's Debate between helping East Africa and developing it through the expenditure of anything from £25 million up and the way we are improving our marginal land by expending £300,000 a year, which I am told works out at something like 4½d. an acre. If we are really serious about tackling the problem of feedingstuffs, and if we really believe that a solution for this problem lies in greater production of home produced feedingstuffs, we should be more imaginative in tackling the problem of producing feedingstuffs on marginal land.
Besides their anxiety about getting an increase in feedingstuffs, farmers are also equally anxious that there shall not be sudden fluctuations in the ration. The farmers in my area are afraid of the ration being boosted to a level which cannot be maintained. If that happens, farmers' programmes will be disturbed. That has occurred in the accredited poultry breeding scheme. I do not suggest that the Minister's explanation that he could only keep up the level on autumn accounting by prejudicing the basic ration is not correct, but it is unfortunate if the farmer's scheme of operations is to be disturbed in that way.
The same thing applies to calf rearing in respect of which additional rations are particularly needed. There are all sorts of rumours about changes in the rationing scheme. One rumour is that there will be changes directed towards penalising poor milk production. I hope the Minister will see that any differentiation which is brought about will not prejudice the position of the small farmers, particularly those on poor land. There may be many explanations for a poor level of production, and one may well be "poor land." A farmer on poor land is not in a position to produce feedingstuffs for himself on anything like the same basis as a man on far superior land.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is of particular concern to my area and also of general concern. It is the attitude of the Minister and his Department toward T.B. eradication. The county of Cardigan occupies a unique position with 75 per cent. of clean herds, the highest in England and Wales, and the neighbouring

counties, Carmarthen and Pembroke—the Minister has given them full credit—follow very closely. We have heard nothing in the last three years whether the effort towards the establishment of clean areas—the total eradication of T.B. from our herds—is to be followed to a logical conclusion. I hope the Minister will have something positive to say in that direction.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Health is now recommending that hospitals shall use pasteurised milk instead of T.T. milk? Does he think that is the way to encourage milk production?

Mr. Bowen: I am glad that the hon. Member has made that interruption. The Ministers of Health, Agriculture and Food ought to be putting their heads together over this. One thing I can assure the Minister is that the present gallonage premium itself will not be sufficient to guarantee that the areas which have reached the 75 per cent. level will maintain that level if there is no prospect at all of a really general scheme of T.B. eradication.
I do not believe it for one moment, but if the Government take the view, now that they have the Milk (Special Designations) Act, that pasteurised milk is to take the place of T.T. milk, they ought to say so. However, I do not think it is. Let us follow things to their logical conclusion. If it is not so, why is not something being done to establish clean areas. The three counties which I have mentioned are around the level of 75 per cent. T.B. eradication and are suitable for the establishment of a clean area. Why is not a pilot scheme being arranged there, for it is a step towards the establishment of clean areas throughout the country?
I am told that the trouble is finance. However, a scheme of this kind would assist the producer and the consumer, it would be a good thing for agriculture as a whole, and it would certainly be a good thing for the health of the nation. I hope that something will be said by the Minister to assure the House that the question of compensation for reactors will not stand in the way of the introduction by the Ministry of a scheme of this kind. In the area I have suggested I am certain that the question of compensation could


easily be settled and that the Minister could come to an arrangement to establish a pilot scheme without delay. Neither the farming industry as a whole nor the Treasury should stand in the way of a reasonable arrangement, which would undoubtedly bring considerable benefits to the community.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Gooch: I wish to take a different line from that adopted by most hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate. I must disappoint the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) in reference to what he said about direction. This is not the first occasion on which the nation has looked to agriculture for a substantial contribution to assist in a difficult situation. I am glad that the Minister has told farmers that our food plan is in peril. My right hon. Friend has said that we must see that the job we have to do is well-planned, well-founded and well-balanced. Many farmers in all parts of the country will respond.
The times are so serious that I wish to put forward a suggestion which will not be popular with hon. Members opposite. I suggest that there must be a return to some form of direction. The efficient farmer who is concerned with the welfare of the State will have nothing to fear. The Minister should be in a position to exercise some control over the ordinary farmer who grows onions when his land should be devoted to wheat or sugar beet, and then denounces the Minister of Food because he cannot sell the onions which he should never have grown. In other words, I suggest that the Minister should have power to compel the cobbler to stick to his last, and to leave the growing of horticultural crops to practical horticulturists.
I wish to advance the views of farm workers on the present situation. They have been thinking about the food production crisis, and they take the view that bold steps are necessary. I beg the Minister to be courageous and to take in hand the farmer who is not pulling his weight. He can only do that by taking to himself again a power which he formerly exercised. I refer to the power of direction.
The views of the farmers and landowners are often heard in this House, but

I am afraid that the views of the farm workers, as expressed by them, are very rarely heard. A resolution passed by the executive committee of the National Union of Agricultural Workers only a few days ago expressed in definite language what the farm workers feel about the problem. In the resolution they advocate not only:
… a planned industry and properly supervised acts of husbandry
but they
… urge the Government to consider the reorganisation of the agricultural executive committees with provision for more adequate representation of the workers, the resumption of directions for cropping, the increased mechanisation of agriculture, and the maintenance of county machinery depots and the cultivation of derelict land. …
Only in that way do they suggest that the Minister will be able to make a success of his job. The time has long passed when a real effort should be made to plan the industry and to supervise husbandry. I assert that many county agricultural committees today are kicking their heels and wondering what to do next. I think that they should be organised upon an entirely different basis. After the committees have been reorganised and issued their directions, I am certain that no patriotic farmer will refuse to play his part. I wish to pay my tribute to the farmers and farm workers for the fine work they have done. I believe that if encouraged by the Minister, with direction in the background, they will do an even better job in the difficult days ahead.
I listened with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said at the weekend. He said that the Conservatives would give the British farmers first place in the home market. The Labour Government have already done that. He further declared:
We will give the farmers clear guarantees.
Not only have the Labour Government given the guarantees but, more important still, they have given the cash to the farmers. In respect of the production of many crops, I believe that the sky is the limit.
May I say, in conclusion, that I do not think we should spend any more money on marginal land or reclamation schemes. I think the key to the solution to our problem is increased production of the


kind of crops that are urgently needed from the land that is already farmed. I do not think that the agricultural expansion programme can be realised without a new sense of urgency, but it is within the province and power of the Minister of Agriculture to give that new sense of urgency which will produce the goods we want.
I congratulate the Minister on having formed a council of the nation—Minister, farmers and farm workers—and I have no doubt that plans can be devised to overcome the present crisis and make the way fair for a return to the full realisation of the Government's agricultural expansion programme.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Turton: This Debate has been in strong contrast to the similar Debate which took place a year ago. On that occasion, the Debate was opened by the Minister of Agriculture, who seemed proud not of his own achievements but of the achievements of the industry, because he said:
… it was our duty to make provision so that farmers could go full-speed ahead and establish the industry now, and for as far ahead as one can see, as an integral part of our national economy. I believe that the opportunity has been seized with both hands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 249.]
There was no doubt that both farmers and farm workers were pulling their full weight, but somehow in recent months there has grown up a certain confusion in the agricultural industry concerning what the Government and certain hon. Members opposite think of the industry's achievements. It was started by the hon. Member for North East Ham (Mr. Daines) when we were discussing the Agricultural Marketing Bill, when he said:
It seems that what lies behind this Bill is capitalist syndicalism, where, so far as the welfare, high profits and even high wages of one industry are concerned, they are given at the expense of the community. I do not accept it as the function of the Labour Government to formulate policies that give advantages to one section of industry at the expense of the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 1795.]
That speech meant that there was a division in the party opposite which we regretted, because we considered that that policy had had the full support of the House. If I remember rightly, that speech

was followed only ten days later by a speech by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who, in attacking hon. Members on this side of the House, said:
They are encouraging the farming community to adopt the attitude of a pampered keep of the rest of the community. That is an attitude of mind which is neither healthy for the farmers nor likely to contribute to their good. It is time they learned that this people do not eat exclusively for the convenience of the farmer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1949: Vol. 463, c. 3058.]
I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary cheers at that remark, because I think those were unhappy words for future harmony in the agricultural industry. Unfortunately, that is only an indication of what certain Members of the Socialist Party are now thinking.
There has been published recently a document entitled "Socialism and Farming," which has the further title of "Challenge to 1950," whatever that means. I see that the hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) seems to have more than a passing acquaintance with this document, and, on turning to page 16, where there is a summing up of the position as seen through the eyes of those who produced this document, I read:
It has recently been calculated that in terms of work-performance per man-year, the average agriculturist in England and Wales was 2 per cent. less efficient in 1946 than in 1937–39 in spite of the fact that the extra-manual power (horses and tractors) at his disposal had doubled. In simpler terms this means that farmers and farmworkers were not working anything like as hard in 1946 as in 1937–39. And there is no reason to believe that they are working any better today.
It goes on to say:
Although there are other factors involved, … it seems to be agreed that many farmers and farm-workers are taking life a little too easily.

Mr. Gooch: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my name in connection with what he has just read to the House. I assure him that I had nothing whatever to do with writing what he read to the House just now.

Mr. Turton: When I mentioned this document, I thought the hon. Gentleman gave an affirmative nod, and therefore I thought he had some knowledge of the document.

Mr. Gooch: I do not subscribe to what the hon. Gentleman has read to the House.

Mr. Turton: I am delighted to hear it, but I am trying to find out how many hon. Members opposite support this document which is prepared by one of their principal party organisations, to which a large part of the Socialist Party belong. Throughout this Debate there has been a current of discontent among the speakers opposite, and I fear that unless we can get from the Minister some greater assurance that his party are united on agriculture, and are also in agreement with us that farmers and farm workers are doing their best to achieve reasonable targets of production, there will be a certain amount of disappointment among the agricultural community.
We started off with the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye). He said that in his view, something was not going quite right. I listened very carefully to his speech. I always pay great attention to the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk because he is a practical farmer and usually gives very good advice to hon. Members, although we do not always agree with it. But I thought he made a very dangerous suggestion when he said that his party would be ready to take out of the schedule commodities to which guaranteed prices had been attached. Surely, the one common basis of Conservatives, Socialists and Liberals has lately been this system of guaranteed prices. We started it in the days of Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, a former Minister of Agriculture, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and the present Minister of Agriculture have played a very large part in it. But the whole plan will be broken if we adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk that a commodity can suddenly be taken out of the schedule. That struck me as being a mistake.
Then we had a speech to which I listened with great interest, from the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts). He said that there was a lack of confidence and urgency. He felt, as I understood him, that the Ministry had not been representing the interests of agriculture in the battle with the War Office and the other Departments. I

entirely agree with that criticism. I think it is a weakness in the present administrative set-up, and I should like to see it altered.
But the final speech which I feel has exposed this division came from the hon. Member for Northern Norfolk. He believes that the whole policy of the Government should be radically altered, that we should reintroduce direction of cropping, and that we should not take the measures which the Minister is trying to take to assist the cultivation of marginal land. It struck me that the only radical cure which the hon. Member for Northern Norfolk was suggesting was the substitution of the present Minister of Agriculture by the hon. Member for Northern Norfolk. That seems to me to be the aim and object of his conclusions.
But surely it is unfortunate to have this criticism of the Minister and his policy from Members of his own party. It means that confidence is going out of the industry. The Minister added to that lack of confidence by the broadcast that he made on Thursday. It struck me that farmers listening to it could not clearly make out what they had failed to do. It is quite true that the Minister said—and this is the first conclusion I reached on reading the report of his broadcast—that he charged them with having failed to produce half a million acres of wheat. He immediately said that that was caused by the weather, and I thought that was well explained by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) who led for the Opposition today. I believe the Minister is wrong on this question of setting such store by wheat acreage. I am quite sure that what we want to get is a balanced agriculture that preserves its fertility and, at the same time, gets the highest quantity of protein food that we require in this country. I do not think we shall get that by 2¾ million acres of wheat.
Every time I have spoken on this question of agricultural policy, particularly on 27th January this year, I have always made it absolutely clear that I believe that to get more than two million acres of wheat today would throw our agricultural economy out of balance. It would be far better if the Minister concentrated on getting the country to grow more coarse grains and getting larger areas


down to good temporary grass. That is my view and I discount that part of the Minister's broadcast.
The next accusation which the Minister levelled against these unfortunate farmers and farmworkers was that somehow they had failed in their production of barley, oats and mixed corn. I thought that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond exposed the weakness of that accusation pretty well. The Minister said that the farmers had failed to reach their target this year by 2½ per cent. I wonder if there is any other industry that has so narrowly failed to get its target laid down in the Economic Survey. Really, was it worth a 10-minute broadcast on Thursday if that was the only failure? There has been a failure, because we had expected to get more meat by more feedingstuffs. It is no good hon. Members opposite saying in this House that we do not want and need not import more feedingstuffs today. For agriculture to get its maximum production, as we have laid down in our plans to the O.E.E.C., it must get more feedingstuffs from abroad in addition to getting more from ploughing up the land in this country.
Let me say a word on marginal land production. Unlike the hon. Member for Northern Norfolk I believe the most economic way to get this marginal land into production is to give grants under a marginal land scheme not only for the cost of the services but also for the capital improvements required to fit out that land for greater production. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire forgot—

Mr. Kirkwood: The first thing to do is to nationalise the land.

Mr. Turton: I am not in favour of nationalising the marginal land and I must tell the hon. Member at once that when the Government start farming this marginal land—and the Minister can check me and tell me exactly what profit was made—I believe the losses will be so exceptional that it will not be good for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would probably have to go to Switzerland for a longer period.
In my county I have had complaints from farmers that when they try to obtain

grants under the new scheme, they are denied them because, they are told, they are too good farmers. In other words, farmers who are bad farmers can get the grant. I know of one large area of bracken-covered land. The farmer is not a man of substance. Last year he applied for a grant for doing half of it and he received a grant under the marginal scheme. This year, when he applied for it, he was turned down on the ground that he farmed a certain amount of land above the marginal nature. As the Minister's Department is charging £14 an acre for converting bracken land with their machinery, I cannot see how we shall get the marginal scheme working unless we have the grant, not on the state of the man's bank balance, but on the nature of the land which is to be improved.
Turning to feedingstuffs, I want to know why we cannot get more feedingstuffs at the present time from the Argentine. With his colleagues, the Minister has concluded an agreement with the Argentine Government. Why is it that the amount to be spent on feedingstuffs is just two-thirds of the amount which was spent last year? We find we are going to spend a good deal more on meat—two-thirds more than last year—but we are to spend only two-thirds as much on feedingstuffs as we spent last year. When we turn to oilcakes and meals, we find that, whereas last year we spent £19 million, this year we are to spend only £12 million under that agreement.
It means, therefore, that farmers have not failed but that the Minister of Food has failed he has failed to provide the feedingstuffs required. He has achieved less than his target by 30 per cent. of cereal feedingstuffs and 32 per cent. less in other animal feedingstuffs and oilcakes this year than was the case last year. The Minister ended his broadcast by asking all farmers to look at themselves and say, "Am I playing my part? Why not?" The man who has not played his part in this matter is the Minister of Food, and that is the answer to the broadcast by the Minister of Agriculture. I wish, instead of making that broadcast, the Minister had come to the House and told us why he and his colleagues are failing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Mr. Williams.

Mr. Edgar Granville: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? When the right hon. Gentleman has made his reply to this Debate is it the intention that the Debate should be carried on or will that conclude the Debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think a question of Order arises, but, in fact, under the Standing Orders of the House it will be necessary to put all the outstanding Votes at 9.30, and there will then be no opportunity for any other speeches.

Mr. Granville: May I call your attention to the fact, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the preceding Debate was to have stopped at 6.30 to allow this one to begin, but that this one did not begin until 7.0? This is a vital Debate on agriculture. We may be indulging in communal feeding inside two years—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Granville: This matter of agriculture is one of vital urgency.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Granville: We talk about ground-nuts—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat at once. He disobeyed my order, and he did not sit down when I rose. If he had not now done so, I should have had no alternative but to order him to withdraw from the Chamber. The Standing Orders provide that all outstanding Votes must be put at 9.30, and the Chair has no option but to put those Questions.

Mr. Granville: I wish to make a protest against the shortness of the Debate.

9.6 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I have listened with all my usual interest to this Debate, but with much more than my usual amazement at some of the statements that have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, all of which I hope to be able to reply to later. Certainly, much of the thinking that has gone towards these proposals, and of the criticisms by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is wide of the mark.

Mr. Granville: The Debates were arranged through the usual channels.

Mr. Williams: I should like to explain for the benefit of hon. Members opposite what the expansion programme really is, for it seems to me that, although it is two years since the programme started, hon. Members Opposite still know nothing at all about it. In the Conservative Party statement, "The Right Road for Britain," which, I feel, will never be regarded as a classic, there is certainly one statement with which I positively agree. It appears on page 30, and is:
British agriculture should produce at least half as much again as it did just before the war.
That statement is neither novel nor original. I announced in 1947, when I set out the various targets, that the figures represented an increase in production of 50 per cent. on pre-war production. That is what we thought, and now the Opposition are taking to themselves this idea. It is to their credit, at least, that they are only two years behind, for they are usually 22 years behind.
The object of the expansion programme was to enable us to produce from our own soil food which would not be available abroad, or if available, for which we could not pay, particularly where dollars were concerned. The methods we outlined to achieve a 50 per cent. higher output were to maintain a high level of production of crops for human consumption such as wheat, potatoes, sugar beet; a wide extension of livestock; 20 per cent. increase in milk; 30 per cent. increase in eggs; 10 per cent. in beef and veal. Those are percentages over pre-war levels. They are much bigger increases over the figures for 1946 to 1947, except in the case of milk. We also set out to aim at a large increase in pig meat, mutton and lamb. We did not, however, expect to achieve all these targets before 1952 or 1953, unless in the case of milk. Those are still our targets, and wherever they can be exceeded they will be.
However, we cannot rely upon the unlimited supplies of feedingstuffs which were available to us before the war. Indeed, then we were able to import 6,000,000 tons every year, to which were added 3,000,000 tons of home grown


grain and nearly 3,000,000 tons of milling offals, and so forth; a total altogether of approximately 12 million tons. The byproducts are still available, but on a lower scale, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) stated in his observations.
Imported feedingstuffs are much more precarious than before the war. There is little likelihood of dollars being available in 1952 and later years for maize from North America. Oilcakes and rice bran from India and Burma have fallen off, and there is no assurance that that situation is open to recovery. We are still getting supplies from the Argentine and elsewhere, but even in the Argentine the production of maize is much less than it was pre-war, and no one can tell what supplies will come from non-dollar countries in future years. I shall reply later to the figures given by the hon. Baronet, which are, as usual, a fantasy, as I shall be able to show. We must never forget that we are not the only country requiring feedingstuffs who will perhaps have no dollars to pay for them. There will therefore be other competitors, in the non-dollar markets.
Those, briefly, are the reasons why we felt that our supplies of imported feedingstuffs were not certain—I put it no higher than that—to exceed 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the pre-war volume. Certainly no one can at this date foresee what supplies may be three or four years ahead. Although there may be supplies in North America it is not easy for me, or indeed for anyone else, to see just how we are going to pay for them. If the shop is full of goods it is of little or no use to people who have no money in their pockets.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, with that wild spirit of abandon that they display when they are in opposition, say that they would jump in now with Marshall dollars and buy more feedingstuffs. Apparently they do not even yet appreciate that Marshall dollars are provided on a fixed quantity each year, and possibly on a diminishing scale. Therefore, to use Marshall dollars for feedingstuffs—and the figures mentioned by the hon. Baronet almost staggered me—we shall certainly have to reduce our imports of something else, and I should like to ask

the Opposition what essential imports they would reduce. Cotton? Would they put our textile industry in Lancashire in difficulties?
If the figure mentioned by the hon. Baronet were acted upon, it would cut off from the United Kingdom 50 per cent. of all the food, drink, tobacco and raw materials imported from the U.S.A. in 1948. If the Opposition are willing to cut off 50 per cent. of the whole of our raw materials, which would mean our industries closing down, then they ought to stand up on the platform and tell the world that they actually mean that. If they do not mean that, then all these statements about spending dollars on feedingstuffs are so much moonshine, and unworthy of hon. Members of this House.
Our realistic aim is to increase livestock production as rapidly as we can with home grown feedingstuffs, supplemented by imports to the maximum we can afford to buy. It is because our only certain supplies when imports come to an end are those produced at home that I recently found it necessary to draw farmers' attention once more to the fact that in their own interests, as well as in the interests of the nation, they should grow more feedingstuffs for pigs and poultry, and conserve more grass for winter feeding of cattle and sheep, thereby releasing still more concentrates for pigs and poultry.

Mr. Granville: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a specific question?

Mr. Williams: No.

Mr. Granville: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that he is not entitled to rise and speak unless the right hon. Gentleman in possession of the House gives way.

Colonel Dower: On a point of Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No point of Order can arise on that matter.

Mr. Granville: Although the right hon. Gentleman has not much time, I thank him for giving way so that I may ask him a simple question—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: rose—

Mr. Granville: The Minister has given way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order!

Mr. Granville: He has given way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. If he will forgive my saying so, his real complaint is that he has not been called. That is unfortunate, but Mr. Speaker has exercised his discretion, and there were a great number of Members who wished to speak. The right hon. Gentleman only gave way when I rose. I do not know whether or not he desires to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Williams.

Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Minister constantly to ask questions of Members on the Opposition Front Bench and then to give them no opportunity to reply?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no point of Order.

Mr. Williams: It seems to me that apparently I am not now to be allowed to reply to this Debate which has been going on for two hours.

Mr. Granville: You suggested, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my real complaint was that I have not—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order—

Mr. Granville: —been fortunate enough to catch your eye. That has never been my complaint, although I have sat through the whole of this Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Member resumes his seat when I rise I have no alternative but to direct him to leave the Chamber. If the hon. Member has a point of Order, and it is a point of Order, I will hear him. Mr. Granville.

Mr. Granville: My point of Order is that this Debate has been robbed of 25 minutes by the preceding Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Williams: I am sorry that the hon. Member was not called to speak, but he really ought not to do his best to prevent me from replying to the Debate.

Mr. Granville: The right hon. Gentleman would not give way.

Mr. Williams: I hope the hon. Member will not spoil my chance of giving a reply.
Members opposite have on several occasions referred to the policy adopted by European countries using Marshall Aid to build up their livestock. Looking at the July Bulletin of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, entitled "Food and Agriculture Statistics," we find that the export of maize from the Argentine and the U.S.A. for 1948 is 2,700,000 tons, and that more than half came to the United Kingdom. We find that Holland received 230,000 tons, France 188,000 tons, Belgium 126,000 tons and Denmark 9,000 tons, whereas the United Kingdom received nearly 1½ million tons. No Member opposite has given us credit for what we have achieved. I ask Members opposite to test these figures for themselves and if they find they are right, as I fear they will, to withdraw the wild and misleading statements which they have been making for many months.
We have to remember that although these countries are using Marshall Aid to buy their feedingstuffs, they do not have to import the raw material we have to import to keep their industries going. In any case, we have obtained very large quantities of feedingstuffs from non-dollar sources. What the position of these other countries may be at the end of Marshall Aid is their business and not ours. It is certainly not our policy to run the risk of having to slaughter our livestock two or three years hence because we have made a muddle of things now.
I am glad of this opportunity to reply to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) and to the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) and correct the many false notions they have about feedingstuffs. The hon. Member for Newbury referred on 18th July to the ration of pigs and poultry when he was less than fair to us—there was far too much politics and too little accuracy.


The hon. Baronet fell into the same error. He said that the ration for pigs was little more than one-fifth of the pre-war quantity, but he made no reference to my announcement on 19th May which gave a further half million tons of feedingstuffs for pigs.
As a result of that announcement, from September next there will be one and a half million tons of feedingstuffs exclusively for pigs, compared with 400,000 tons in 1948 and one million tons this year. That is a very steep increase for which the hon. Member for Newbury gave us no credit at all. The hon. Gentleman knew the facts just as well as I know them.

Mr. Hurd: I quoted the effect on the numbers of pigs that would follow.

Mr. Williams: With the basic ration calculated on 9/40ths of the pre-war registrations, and the amount required for the treble bonus scheme and the extended scheme, the quantity we are allocating is equivalent to at least one-third of prewar registrations. That is apart altogether from any allowance for farrowing sows, pig clubs and domestic pig keepers. The hon. Member said I had been treated badly by my Cabinet colleagues, and had not been given a chance to help farmers improve their livelihood. The old story, "The Minister is not a bad fellow, but he keeps bad company," might go down all right with some Tory audiences and keep the fading embers of doubting Toryism alive, though not for long, but the fact is that these results could not have been achieved without the assistance of my colleagues.
The total amount of feedingstuffs distributed by ration for 1946–47 was 2.7 million tons. The quantity we propose to distribute during 1949–50 is no less than 6 million tons. The effect of this will be that the feedingstuffs issue of rations, together with unrationed concentrates such as the grain which the farmer is allowed to keep on his farm—oats, linseed etc.—amounting to another 4 million tons, will be 10 million tons for 1949–50 compared with 12 million tons pre-war. The hon. Gentleman talked about the one-fifth being about 20 per cent. of the pre-war figure, but the fact is that the amount being allocated is more than 80 per cent. of the pre-war figure. It seems as though the hon. Baronet the Member

for Richmond and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) want to reduce the amount of feedingstuffs available to nil. I hope they will make a mental note of these figures and, when they go back to their constituencies, will talk no more about one-fifth or 20 per cent. but about 80 per cent. or more of pre-war feedingstuffs being available—

Mr. Turton: rose—

Mr. Williams: Surely the hon. Member knows that I have not much time.

Captain Crookshank: We are not allowed to challenge the figures.

Mr. Williams: The figures are unchallengeable. These improvements are due to the successful conclusion of the agreement with Argentina, and reasonable prospects of supplies from non-dollar countries.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman challenged some figures which I gave, and now when I want to controvert what he said he will not give way, Mr. Speaker. Is that in Order?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House and need not give way.

Mr. Williams: It may not be pleasant for Members opposite to listen to my reply, but they will have to listen to as much of it as I can give them in the time available. The agreement with Argentina, with reasonable prospects of supplies from other non-dollar sources, will not only enable us to carry out the improvements I have mentioned, but will enable us to take two other steps which, I am sure, will startle and distress the Opposition. Hitherto, no regular ration has been made for calves over the age of six months. We have had advice from all quarters that the absence of this provision leaves a serious gap, and I am able to announce to the House that a ration will be provided for calves over six months during the winter period beginning 1st October next. I wish to make it quite clear, however, that I can give no promise of a repetition during the following winter, or that any dollars will be involved in this arrangement.
A further non-recurring measure will be taken almost immediately. It is customary


to issue rations for cows and heifers which calve down in October and November as a sort of steaming up allowance. On this occasion we are giving an additional ration of one cwt. of cereal for each animal concerned. This ration is very much needed, because of the drying up of our pastures during the hot weather.
Having announced these improvements, which may very well prove to be only temporary, I want to emphasise what I said to the N.F.U. last week and in my broadcast statement, that it would be rash for us to count on an annual supply of rationed feedingstuffs at the level I have already mentioned, or at least an expanding supply sufficient to maintain our livestock population. We are convinced, in fact, that it is reasonably certain that we shall have to require a higher degree of self-sufficiency for dairy cows for rationing purposes from 1st October, 1950. There are some problem areas which need special treatment, and we shall be working on that in consultation with the various organisations concerned as to the most practical method of giving effective aid to those special areas.
We believe it is perfectly feasible to keep up the output of milk by increased use of home feedingstuffs, especially grass and fodder crops, thereby releasing coarse grains to maintain other rations. I am making this announcement in order to give dairy farmers good warning so that they can make their cropping plans for 1950 with the provision of protein feedingstuffs, such as silage and dried grass well in view. If they use hay, silage and dried grass for the maintenance of the first gallon of milk in winter it would release large quantities of oilcakes and cereal foods for pigs and poultry.
Side by side with this expansion we must continue to press for more wheat acreage notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Newbury on 18th July and by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton this evening. An amount of 2¾ million acres is not beyond our capacity without unduly unbalancing the industry at all. As a matter of fact, in 1943 we had 3,600,000 acres and in 1944 3,350,000 acres. We would not aim at

that figure today, but all the expert advice I get is to the effect that we can touch that target by 1952 without unduly unbalancing the agriculture of this country.
I notice that my time is nearly up, and there are some questions to which I simply cannot reply. All I would say is that so far as the hill farming and marginal land schemes are concerned we have no reason to doubt that the total of £4 million set apart under the Hill Farming Act for this purpose will be taken up before that Act expires. The marginal land scheme is on the small side, but should either or both be found to be not sufficient for their needs, then the Government will be ready to look at both schemes again.
I hope I have said enough to compel hon. Members to change their propaganda, and instead of talking about one-fifth of the ration or 20 per cent. pre-war they will write down in their notebooks 80 to 85 per cent., and if hon. Members opposite try to uphold and maintain the honourable tradition of the Tory Party for truth, rural Britain will stand by its saviour the Labour Government.

It being Half-past Nine o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to IX of the Civil Estimates and of the Revenue Departments Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates.

[For details of the remaining Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1949; Vol. 467, cc. 2371–2378.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1949–50

CLASS I

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS II

FOREIGN AND IMPERIAL

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS III

HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV

EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS V

HEALTH, HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, LABOUR, NATIONAL INSURANCE, AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL REVENUES.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI

TRADE, INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORT

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII

COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, &C.)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES (PENSIONS)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX

SUPPLY, FOOD AND MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1949–50

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1949–50

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1949–50

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1949–50

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR ESTIMATES, 1949–50

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [26th July]

Resolution reported:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1950, the sum of £1,751,693,881 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Glenvil Hall.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 3.—(PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN HOUSES UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 25, leave out "or."

9.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next Amendment, in line 28, at the end, to insert:
or
(c) a house, other than as aforesaid, in respect of which there is for the time being in force a notice given by that Minister to the local authority stating that the architectural or historic interest of the house is sufficient to render it inexpedient that the house should be demolished pending determination of the question whether or not it should be made the subject of such a building preservation order as aforesaid or included in such a list as aforesaid;
relate to the same subject. It was pointed out on Report that there might be a gap in providing the safeguard for houses of special historical and architectural interest, in that some houses which were not already listed but were under consideration for listing might, before the listing was carried out, be demolished.

The Amendments carry out a promise to ensure that there would be a stay of execution for houses of this nature, and in these cases the Minister of Town and Country Planning will be able to issue a notice to the effect that he is taking consideration of houses of this character, to ensure that until the decision is made the houses will be retained.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Amendment carries out a proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), and we offer no objection whatever to it. Most of these Amendments are non-controversial and the Opposition would offer no objection if it were possible to put a large number of them together to the House for sanction.

Colonel Dower: If that is to be done, may I take it that the Government intend to support the Amendment in page 3, line 31, at the end to insert:
and shall serve a copy of the order upon every person upon whom they would be required by subsection (1) of section eleven of the principal Act to serve a notice issued by them under that subsection
which is very important? If so, I see no possible objection to this procedure.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Mr. Blenkinsop indicated assent.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Colonel Dower: As that Business has been completed in about 30 seconds, may I say what a pity it is that we were not able to go to bed the other night by accepting all the Iron and Steel Bill Amendments.

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Orders of the Day — GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

Resolved:
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, for the year ending on 31st March, 1950, laid before this House on 5th July, 1949, be approved."—[Mr. J. Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the draft National Health Service (Scotland) (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

9.40 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Nobody can complain that there has been any obstruction from this side of the House tonight, and I trust that the spirit of sweet reasonableness will prevail throughout. I would call attention to the fact that these regulations cover large sums of money and considerable numbers of employees. As they affect Scotland, they cover moneys which were brought in and they apparently diminish the great weight of the burden of National Health Service expenditure. It is only apparently diminishing that burden because, later on, these sums which are now being brought in, will be drawn upon to deal with the superannuation benefits which will have to be paid. But at present, as far as I understand the position, a sum of something like £2,500,000 for Scotland alone is being brought in to diminish the apparent weight of the cost of the National Health Service. The only payment out is a sum of £140,000. A very substantial sum is being brought in and, relatively speaking, only a small one is being paid out.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland to say something on the point that admittedly these regulations cover a much larger number of employees than was originally budgeted for. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give any estimate about how far the number now being brought in exceeds the original number. The estimating on the National Health Service has been what one might call sketchy and indeed of a provisional character. It is now time that we were beginning to be a little bit more precise on these matters. If the right hon. Gentleman could give any information we should be very glad.

9.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The point is that these regulations amend the original regulations. While there are slight adjustments here and there, the amount of money involved is negligible. No money at all is involved in the regulations and nothing

in particular is added to the cost of the scheme. These adjustments are being made as a result of various matters which have come to light since the superannuation regulations were originally introduced. Of course, a large number—about 50,000 employees—is covered. But there is no increase there. If there are any other details about which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would like information, I will try to give it to him.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but perhaps I might say that I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would look further into the points I have raised and write to me upon them. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, these regulations cover the conditions of employment of some 50,000 persons in Scotland. The regulations are of such complexity that I would not even hazard trying to read bits of them to the House after the heavy week which we have had. I tried it upon the previous occasion with the English regulations, but they were of such complexity that nobody on either side of the House was any more enlightened after hearing several passages of them read aloud than they were before, and if that could happen when we were all fresh before an all-night sitting, I tremble to think what would happen after one.
The original regulations covered 87 pages, and the amended regulations in 1948 consisted of 10 pages. The present ones cover 16 pages—16 pages of Amendments to 100 pages of regulations covering the conditions of employment of 50,000 persons. The House should realise the way in which it is enmeshing itself through these regulations affecting the citizen. These complicated documents are laid before us and the Secretary of State has had to cast himself upon the mercy of the House tonight, because all these matters are of such complexity that he would not like to try to explain them to us. I hope, however, that he will be able to explain them later by correspondence.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: There is one point to which I should like to refer, and, complicated as these regulations are, I think it is straightforward. If I might direct attention to paragraph 19 of these regulations, which deals with the application to voluntary organisations, we find that it says—


Provided that the terms and conditions of any such admission as aforesaid"—
that is, admission to a local government superannuation scheme—
may contain provision that any previous period of employment by the organisation of an employee so admitted as aforesaid shall only be reckonable as service in such manner and to such extent as may be agreed between the local health authority and the organisation.
Out of the 50,000 employees involved, I have in mind particularly the members of the Queen's Institute of District Nurses. I know that there are negotiations going on at present, but I should like to remind the House that, under the existing Queen's Nurses Scheme, the pension to which they are entitled amounts to 30s. per week. That is all they get. Unlike civil servants whose pensions, on the whole, are calculated on the basis either of their retiring earnings or a period of time immediately before they retired, this superannuation sum is calculated only on the basis of the payments made by themselves over a period of years, together with charitable contributions raised in various ways.
It seems to me that this raises an entirely different question. The serious thing is that, in spite of very successful appeals for funds by district nursing associations, which raised very nearly £100,000, the pension fund is still £80,000 short of the sum actuarially required to meet their obligations. The main source of revenue is the Scottish Gardens Scheme. I understand that, under the arrangements contemplated, some of the district nurses in the areas for which local authorities are taking direct responsibility for the home nursing service will be admitted to the superannuation scheme, but without any back credit at all, contrary even to what is said in this particular paragraph, whereas those for whom the local authorities are indirectly responsible will only enter if they make their own back payments. That is the only condition on which they can enter. The Scottish Gardens Scheme has been raising funds for the last 18 years at the rate of £10,000 a year, His Majesty's gardens at Balmoral being the biggest contributor.
It seems to me that they are going to have very much more difficulty in future in raising sums of this character. In the first place, the county nursing associations are gradually being wound up, and as

they cease to function the local people, no doubt, will not longer feel the same responsibility for providing these funds. In the second place, of course, there is a difficulty arising owing to the lack of petrol, since not so many people are now able to visit the gardens. In consequence, the garden funds are suffering substantially. It seems to me objectionable that public servants, such as the district nurses now are, should have to depend for their pensions either partly on public funds and partly on funds raised by charity, or else, in the case of the older nurses, wholly on funds raised by charitable subscriptions, with, of course, their own contributions added.
It seems to me that the regulations ought to have made more generous provision for this, and I am afraid that in paragraph 19 amending Regulation 42, quite insufficient provision is made. Indeed, it seems limiting, and gives local authorities power to negotiate individually on a basis which would be most unsatisfactory. I know that negotiations are going on, but it seems that the right thing to do, so far as the district nurses are concerned, is for the Institute to divide their funds into two parts—first, the part required to meet their obligations in respect of nurses who retired before the scheme came into force, and, secondly, to hand over the rest to the Secretary of State for Scotland so that he would in future be responsible for the payment of pensions to district nurses on the basis of the present regulations. I hope the Secretary of State will have something to say on this matter, because we all know that the Queen's Nurses give, and have given for the last 60 years, the most marvellous service to Scotland, and are well deserving of the best treatment.

Mr. Woodburn: With the leave of the House, perhaps I could say a word to the hon. Gentleman. I had a visit from the representatives of the nurses' associations, and this matter is being arranged in accordance with their wishes. They wish, of course, to retain their independence—that is the first point—and though they have the right under this Bill to contract in, as it were, for pensions, they would not be able to afford to pay all the arrears in order to get immediate pensions. The purpose of this is to enable each of them, as it suits their circumstances, to enter into arrangements with the local authorities in order to come to


an arrangement mutually advantageous. This does not lay down any limits or restrictions as to how that arrangement will come about. It will be done by mutual agreement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the nursing associations are very jealous of retaining their individuality and wish to retain their right as organisations to help in this particular way. They do not want the Secretary of State to take them over in regard to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Macpherson: What about the associations which are being wound up at the present time?

Mr. Woodburn: That, again, is a matter for negotiation. There are so many associations and so many differences that, naturally, everything has to be treated on its merits.

Resolved:
That the draft National Health Service (Scotland) (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 9.—(GRANTS TO PERSONS OTHER THAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 12, at end insert:
(iii) (a) if in relation to any dwelling the Secretary of State (after consultation with the Agricultural Executive Committee and District Wages Committee having jurisdiction within the area in which such dwelling is situate) certifies that such dwelling is necessary for the proper and efficient carrying on of an agricultural holding, the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twelve of this Act shall not apply with respect to such dwelling during such period as such certificate continues in force;
(b) any certificate granted by the Secretary of State as aforesaid may be revoked by him if he is of opinion that the dwelling to which it relates is no longer necessary for the proper and efficient carrying on of the said agricultural holding but before any such certificate is revoked the Secretary of State shall consider any representations made to him by the owner of the dwelling or by the tenant of the said holding;
(c) where any such certificate granted by the Secretary of State is revoked as aforesaid the owner of the dwelling to which the certificate related shall within a period of three months pay to the local authority the like amount as would become payable to them under subsection

(2) of section twelve of this Act in the event of a breach at the date of the revocation of the certificate of any of the conditions specified in subsection (1) of the said section and in the event of the owner failing to pay such amount as aforesaid the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twelve of this Act shall extend and apply to the dwelling in like manner as they would have applied if in the absence of a certificate from the Secretary of State an improvement grant had been made in respect of the dwelling.

9.55 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Bill was intended to benefit the occupiers of houses which might properly be modernised. The occupiers might be the owners themselves of the houses or they might be the tenants of the houses. The House has agreed that the improvement of tied houses will not be assisted under the provisions of the Bill. There are conditions about sale and rent which reduce to the minimum the possibility of private gain to the investor arising from the grants to be made under the provisions of the Bill. We are not dealing with the possibility of private gain to the investor from anything which he himself does, but we are reducing to the minimum the possibility of private gain to the investor arising from the grants made under the provisions of the Bill.
The observance of these conditions makes it possible to extend the benefits of the Bill to the owners of houses which are not occupied by the owners. There are tied houses in many industries and many services, but the House has agreed that agricultural houses should be included in this Bill in like manner as other houses. This Amendment, however, proposes that there should be an exemption from the provisions of the Bill at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the case of certain agricultural houses. I need hardly say that those who speak for the occupants of these houses are strongly opposed to this proposed exemption, and in the circumstances the proposed exemption can hardly be described as a compromise, as it has been described in another place. Can we really agree that the Secretary of State, whoever he should be, should determine which individual houses shall be exempt from the provisions of the Bill? That is what the Amendment proposes. I suggest that this is a dangerous


precedent which this House would not lightly establish and is certainly one which we have no desire to establish at this time.
Even if the House should accept the proposal to grant what amounts to judicial powers to my right hon. Friend, a very cumbersome and costly procedure is proposed. It is suggested in this Amendment that in every case of an application being made to the Secretary of State for exemption from the provisions of the Bill, the Secretary of State should send out one of his representatives who would examine each individual case and then he would consult with the agricultural executive committee. No doubt the agricultural executive committee would send out someone to examine every individual case; then my right hon. Friend would have to consult the district wages committee and, no doubt, they would send out someone to examine every individual case. Then, after the Secretary of State had received and considered all those different reports, it is proposed that he should make his decision. That would inevitably take a considerable time and there would inevitably be accusations of delay.
I know that the National Farmers' Union have worked hard and have made a very sincere effort to overcome what is generally accepted as a problem of very real difficulty. I regret, however, for reasons some of which I have just given, that it is not possible for us to accept this Amendment which I believe is the result of their long consideration of ways and means of getting round the objections that have hitherto been stated against the admission of tied houses to the provisions of this Bill.
I might also say that I am not convinced that there will be serious trouble arising from the untying of houses consequent on their being improved with the assistance of grants made under the provisions of this Bill. We are constantly being told that there are such good relations in agriculture, that there is so little disputation as between master and man, and we are constantly being told that at present there are very few cases of the occupiers of tied houses being evicted by court order. When the farm worker goes out of a job he knows he is going out of a house, and that the house is required for his successor in the job on the farm. In almost every case he goes

without entering into any dispute whatsoever with the farmer.
10.0 p.m.
The passing of this Bill will not convert those very reasonable farm workers of Scotland into most unreasonable people who will, to the best of their ability, obstruct the farmer in finding successors to themselves in their work and in the occupation of their houses. I am sure that the apprehensions felt by some members of the National Farmers' Union are not wholly justified. In any case, we should try the provisions of this Bill as it stands and, if need be, we can amend the law dealing with tied houses in agriculture and in other industries and services in a tidier way than is here proposed. I hope it would be done in a way that might be agreed with those who represent the different interests who will be concerned when the houses which are tied are untied or about which the law might be altered in some way. These are matters which should not be dealt with hurriedly at this stage in a Bill of this kind. These are matters for more mature consideration. For those reasons, I must invite the House to disagree to this Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: I think that in every quarter of the House the words which the Joint Under-Secretary has just spoken must have been heard with feelings of the very deepest regret. I regret exceedingly having had to listen to those words, and particularly to his concluding remarks, when he spoke of the Government perhaps finding a tidier way of dealing with this problem. He said the Government should not be hurried; that they should attend to this matter in a leisurely and orderly way. We have been waiting for four years for this orderly way and it is about time the Government began to hurry themselves in connection with the re-housing of such vast numbers of people in rural Scotland. In spite of that, in spite of the fact that we have been working overtime, if I may say so, during the last two nights, and also in spite of the warmth of the evening, I have to endeavour to do everything in my power to right what I think is a very grievous wrong, a wrong which is being committed against a very deserving section of the community.
It seems to me that in another place, the report of the proceedings in this House having been studied it became


obvious that the Government were unwilling to help in improving this vast number—some 40,000 to 50,000—of rural cottages in Scotland. So, in another place, they came to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with the matter was to follow principles which are obviously acceptable to the Government and which, in fact, have been referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary in the course of his speech.
The Government surely accept that tied houses should be provided in cases where the work is of national importance and where it is obvious that those employed require to live close to their employment. They accept that in connection with forestry, in connection with railways, in connection with the National Health Services and in connection with other services as well. In another place they have followed that principle closely. No one for a moment would deny that the agricultural worker today is performing essential work for the country, work of great and ever greater importance to the nation. I am taking that as being altogether accepted; I take it that that condition has been proved.
Let us look at the other condition to see how that is to be satisfied. According to the Lords Amendment, that condition is to be satisfied by the calling in of the agricultural executive committee and district wages committee, who will certify that the cottage is necessary for the proper and efficient carrying on of the agricultural holding. That is the condition that is laid down, and I consider that that is satisfied by the proposals in the Lords Amendment. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the length of time that would be involved, the number of journeys that would have to be undertaken, and one thing and another. I think that that is carrying matters a little bit too far. After all, people in a county or a region know very well the conditions on most of the farms in that county or region, and therefore it does seem to me that that argument has no substance in it whatsoever. Then adequate safeguards are provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Amendment.
What is the Government's case? They are in agreement that the service cottage is necessary. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government in another place made this defence on behalf of the Government. He said that this case had come

up suddenly, and he had not been able to give it the attention which it demanded; and having said that, he then fell back, it seemed to me, on a stale brief that had been prepared for a completely different set of circumstances altogether. Surely tonight the Secretary of State is not going to base his case on the responsibility of someone else? The Under-Secretary has endeavoured to make that a defence, but I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman will not follow. It is not, after all, a very brave thing to do. It is rather dodging one's responsibility to turn the responsibility on to a trade union representing an eighth of the agricultural workers in Scotland and on to the National Farmers' Union. And that is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He is saying, if he follows the Under-Secretary, that because these two sets of persons cannot agree, then obviously he cannot do anything about it. I do not think that that is right. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman in his heart does not think it is right. I am putting a serious argument. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman in his heart thinks that is right, or that he is really doing his duty if he falls back on an argument of that kind.
After all, what is the right hon. Gentleman doing? He is really condemning some 50,000 families in Scotland to conditions which he believes are not those conditions in which a family today should live. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. He is causing 40,000 to 50,000 families to live in conditions of unhappiness and discomfort in which they need not necessarily live. I think that that is most deplorable. That argument really seems to be somewhat hypocritical, because it is agreed that the service cottage is necessary, and that, therefore, if a man does give up his job, the cottage must be cleared and made available to someone else. There is no doubt about that.
The only difference, then, between the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman suggests and the procedure which will apply to the tied cottage is this, that in the one case the man knows that if he wants to leave his job he must give up his cottage, and in the other, if the man gives up his job and not the cottage the Government would like the fanner to go to the court and get the man evicted from that cottage. I do not think that


the latter alternative is a very happy one. The Under-Secretary tried, I thought, to make a little bit of fun of the good feeling that exists between the farmers and their workers in the present circumstances. Well, that is a fact; that feeling does exist, and today the men know perfectly well that if they give up their jobs they must give up their houses. If it is put the other way, they stay on in the hope that the court may find in their favour, whereas we know perfectly well that if the house is really necessary for the running of the farm an eviction order will probably follow.
When I spoke on the Third Reading of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman asked me why I made all the fuss about this matter, when seemingly it would be an unprofitable business for owners, who would not therefore do it, and said that I need not get excited about it. But on Second Reading I pointed out that if there was one class of persons who would probably benefit it would be this very class which is excluded from the benefits of the Bill, and which another place wishes us to put in, so that they may enjoy those benefits. I think the Under-Secretary rather missed the point, or at any rate he did not allude to it, that this is not so much only a question of owners as also a question for the tenant farmer. The tenant farmer would probably object very strongly if the owner were to enter into arrangements such as are suggested and see that a tenancy were granted. After all, it is the farmer who suffers if a man is not available to do a job, and no farmer, particularly where stock are concerned, can possibly afford to be without a man on the farm even for a few days.
I am appealing most seriously to the Secretary of State, even at this late moment. I think that a grievous wrong is being done. I think that great unhappiness, great discomfort, which could be relieved, is being allowed to continue, and that a very great burden is being imposed on the women, the mothers who are running these 50,000 homes. It really is no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say to me "Let the owners do it." As I have pointed out to him on many previous occasions, the owners have not got the money to do it, and the right hon. Gentleman is as aware of that as I am.

I appeal to the Secretary of State tonight to reconsider this matter in the interests of these farmers who are being made to suffer when they need not suffer. Let him consult the dictates of his own heart in this matter. If he does that, he will do the right thing and allow these people the benefits which they might enjoy under this Bill.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: I was very disappointed to hear the Under-Secretary ask the House to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment. No doubt some of his reasons have a certain amount to be said for them, but I think that any gain the private owner will receive by the acceptance of this Amendment is a mere nothing in comparison with the gain that many farm workers will receive by having their houses reconditioned. I realise that the Scottish Farm Servants' Union is opposed to this Amendment, but let us not forget that only one in eight of Scottish farm servants is a member of the union. I think that we ought to think more of the people who are to live in these houses than of anyone else. Those are the people in whom I am interested.
I shall delay the proceedings for only a few minutes, but there is one point which I think we must not lose sight of. The other day in another place, when this Bill was having its Second Reading there, Lord Clydesmuir, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, raised a point about the Town and Country Planning Act. He said it might be that he would receive some reassurance from the Government that in no way would the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act affect those who wish to improve their property, but that as he saw it, there was a great risk that it might have the effect of slowing up improvements which would otherwise take place.
10.15 p.m.
Later on in that Debate, Lord Morrison, replying for the Government, made it quite clear that any house which is to be reconditioned under this Bill will not be liable to a development charge. Lord Morrison said that dwellings improved under the Bill will be exempt from development charges, and that that purpose would be obtained by regulations made under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. We want to keep in mind that these charges are very


heavy, and that if this Amendment is accepted, there will be a considerable saving to whoever reconditions houses. All of us who are interested in the conditions under which people live will wish for a speed-up in reconditioning. The one thing on which I thought something might be said is expense, but that was never mentioned. This is something which can do nothing but good, and what the investor may make out of it is a mere bagatelle compared with the benefits which the people living in these houses will obtain.

Mr. McKinlay: I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know whether this Amendment is strictly in Order. I should like the case to be argued on its merits instead of the Amendment being ruled out of Order, but at a time when we are being invited by Members opposite to watch national expenditure, I want to be sure that there is no transgression of the Financial Resolution, as in my view this involves an additional charge.

Mr. Speaker: If it involves an additional charge, I have to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it raises a matter of Privilege. But that does not prevent us from discussing these matters. All I have to do is to say that it involves a matter of Privilege, but it is not ruled out on that account.

Mr. McKinlay: Perhaps I might let the House into a secret. It was a Member opposite who destroyed any possible hope of a compromise during the Committee stage on this question. It was the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). I think that the House and the public ought to know that the National Farmers' Union had consultations and we were a fair way towards finding a compromise. I say without fear of contradiction that if Members opposite had left the sponsoring of their case to those who understand the countryside, a compromise might have been reached. It will be found that statements made on behalf of the United Kingdom Property Owners' Association by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen destroyed any possible hope of a compromise.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Since the hon. Gentleman has imputed to me something

which did not happen at all, I am grateful to him for giving way. In the speech that I made on Second Reading I made no reference to the Association he has mentioned, and at no time had I had any contact with that Association. So far as I know, I had no literature from them, I was not intending to make their case and no one suggested to me that I was; I was not pleading anyone's case except, as I thought, that of agriculturists in Scotland.

Mr. McKinlay: You quoted from a document. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am sorry, Sir; I would never credit you with saying any such thing. It was because the hon. Member opposite quoted from a document, and used figures to make his case about development charges, that any chance of a compromise was lost.

Lord William Scott: Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that the Government's policy on the reconstruction of cottages for 40,000 to 50,000 agricultural workers in Scotland is altered by what one back bencher says?

Mr. McKinlay: I am sorry if I have provoked the wrath of the noble Lord, but I did not suggest anything of the kind. What I said, and repeat, was that from the conversations which the N.F.U. delegation had with the Labour group in the House, and with representatives of the Opposition, there was a possibility of a compromise which would have been generally acceptable. I say that the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) killed that possibility stone dead.
I have no wish to be spiteful, but I ask who created this problem? I am amazed that any rural workers' houses remained to be reconditioned after the plunge that was made into the available funds. It was millions of pounds. Had the money been used properly, the problem would not have arisen. Is there anything to compel an owner of a cottage to bring it up to a reasonable standard of comfort? Is there any provision in the Bill which will make that compulsory? Is there any standard in any Housing Act of what constitutes habitability? If I may say so without offence, the farming community are doing very well at the moment. There are Members opposite who are practical farmers, and who,


out of their own pockets, look after the interests of their workers. They spent some time between the wars realising that the happy and contended farm servant was a valuable asset.
I am in some difficulty about the tied house. It is no use saying it is something we can forget; a way must be found of overcoming the difficulty. We threshed the question out in Standing Committee, and while I do not object to another place making Amendments, because that is what, presumably, it exists for, the fact remains that both sides would be well advised to let the Bill go through as it left Standing Committee. We should seek a way out of what is a real difficulty in the countryside. In my submission the difficulty will not be solved by the Bill we are discussing. While I agree that the other side of the House are quite right to make a protest on what they believe to be the proper attitude to be adopted here, it would be in the interests of the harmony of the farming community in Scotland to get this Bill converted into law at the earliest possible moment so that no time will be lost in the interim in finding a way out of what is a great difficulty.

Lord William Scott: There are many of us on this side of the House who find it very difficult to follow the motives of the Labour Government in this matter. There is a very great gulf separating those who believe in the necessity of the tied cottage in the equipment of the farm and those who hold the idea in abhorrence. During a lengthy discussion on this Bill, we have on many occasions been told that hon. Members opposite have fought against assistance for the owners of tied cottages for fear that those owners might make a personal profit out of it. The Secretary of State realises that all the tied and service cottages that might be improved if this Amendment is accepted would result in more owners being out of pocket on the transaction than making a personal profit. The latter would be less than 10 per cent. of those who spend money on these cottages.
It is only right that one should mention on this occasion that the owners of these service cottages in the first place are put to the expense of building them, because they wish to own these cottages so that they can house their workers. They are absolutely essential as part of the equipment

of the farm. Hon. Members opposite realise that such houses are a necessity for farms situated some distance from villages, particularly if farming is to come up to the present standard which this country is desiring.
I can safely say that the attitude of hon. Members opposite is entirely a question of political prejudice. We can see the point of view of those who are opposed to the tied cottage system particularly in an area where there is a considerable shortage of houses. There is sympathy with the view that they wish to prevent an individual and his family from being evicted at short notice by the action of the farmer, but the danger of that occurring is relatively minute compared with the increasing unhappiness that is going to be caused to the occupiers of these tied cottages if they are compelled to live in them as they are without improvements which can be carried through under this Bill, and which can make them fit and worthy residences.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I regret that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland saw fit to ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment. A great deal of time this week has been taken up discussing Amendments from another place. There were many valuable Amendments on other matters which we on this side thought the Government would have been well advised to accept, but they were ruthlessly turned down. I appeal, not very confidently, to the Secretary of State, even now, to lend more sympathetic consideration to this Amendment, which admittedly raises a small point, but one which, so far as the housing of the community in Scotland is concerned, is a very big point. I am glad to see the Home Secretary looking at me with some small measure of approval in his face.
I should have thought the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) would have been more courteous than to make his speech and then immediately to leave the House. I should have expected better from an hon. Member of his long experience in the House. He has gone but that will not prevent me from making certain comments, and even strictures, on his speech. At once I pay tribute to what the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire said in the closing passages of his


speech, when he seemed to show a greater realisation of the housing problem in rural Scotland than some of his associates on the benches behind the Government. That was only what I expected from an hon. Member who has had considerable experience in certain rural areas in Scotland, including two parishes in my own Division. The hon. Gentleman asked what had been done between the wars?

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the point. We are discussing the Lords Amendment.

Mr. McKie: I am merely attempting to reply to what the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had said. He asked on this Amendment what had been done between the wars?

Mr. Speaker: It is all very well for someone to put up a hare; but it is rather foolish to pursue it.

Mr. McKie: I only hope that when the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire reads this Debate, Sir, and your very reasonable restraints on myself, he will realise the folly of what he said.
We are discussing on this Lords Amendment whether or not there shall be forthcoming in future under this Bill, if amended, the same kind of assistance with regard to rural housing which we in our wisdom or folly, think should not have been discontinued by this Government. I am glad to note that in the speeches of the Joint Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire there is a realisation, behind all the political bias and determination to do everything they can against the landed interests, that they are doing something which is considerably prejudicial to the housing of rural workers in Scotland. That came out especially in the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire.
I hope that even at this late hour, those responsible for administering the affairs of the Department of Health for Scotland, under whose purview this question especially comes, will realise that from blind prejudice they are doing something inimical to full production in Scotland, and indeed, to the whole fostering of efficient agriculture in Scotland. We are agreed that there is no dubiety about the need for that. It was never more urgent than it is today. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to ask us about the sins of omission in the past; but they

cannot shelter behind that. If they are really desirous of doing something to better the housing of agricultural workers in Scotland they can do nothing better than accept this very reasonable Lords Amendment.
The question of the tied house applies to England, Wales and Scotland. His Majesty's Ministers have shown that they are resolutely opposed to the tied house merely because they have some preconceived ideas and will do nothing for the tied house whatever. It is not for me to speak of the position in England and Wales. But I do know something about the position in Scotland, and I support what has been said by the noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord William Scott). For agriculture in Scotland it is necessary to have the tied house. It is essential to have the houses within reasonable distance of where the agricultural worker is needed for his work.
I see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is looking somewhat white about the gills. His answer was completely ineffective. I do not say that with any desire to be discourteous. But, having given away his case, the hon. Gentleman went on to say that he could not ask the House to agree to the Lords Amendment. I am very sorry, because I really do think that the Government would be doing a very good thing indeed for Scotland if they were charitable enough to believe that those responsible for holding the tied houses in Scotland were not at all desirous of continuing to house the workers in bad conditions. The idea of the Government seems to be that the landowning class, who might have done more in the past—I am much more open-minded than hon. Gentlemen opposite—desired to continue the same kind of conditions. But they are far from wanting to do that. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that by attempting to deal a blow at them he is merely dealing a blow at the agricultural workers, whose votes he is vainly attempting to solicit ready for the next General Election.
Even at this eleventh hour I venture to hope that those responsible for administering the affairs of the Scottish Health Department will reconsider their decision, and see the wisdom and knowledge which lies behind the various reasons for this Amendment. Failing that, I, for one,


shall have great pleasure in going into the Lobby in favour of agreeing with the Lords in this matter.

Mr. Pryde: I hope the House will stand solidly behind the Secretary of State for Scotland in resisting this Amendment. I listened carefully to what the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) had to say when he pictured the unhappiness of the rural population of Scotland staying in old and decrepit property; but I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not responsible for that. Various Governments must have been responsible, from what I know of the cottages in my own wide constituency, some of which are hundreds of years old. I know, also, that the man who owns the cottage owns the man inside the cottage. Coming as I do from a constituency which has a very large proportion of mining activity in it, I shall never agree to the handing over of the rural population to the tender mercies of employers such as we have experienced in the past in the mining industry.
The noble Lord the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord William Scott) need not tell us that there is no chance of the agricultural worker being evicted. Only last week, Edinburgh newspapers published photographs of an agricultural worker and his family, five of them, one of whom was deaf and dumb, standing out in the rain with all their domestic goods until some people came along and helped them to squat in an old Army hut. I understand that the education committee is telling them to get out of the hut because it is wanted for other purposes.

Commander Galbraith: rose—

Mr. Pryde: It is no use hon. Members opposite interrupting and trying to say differently. I have been too long at the game to be put off. In 1927 I went to the Sheriff's Court in Edinburgh and defended three cases against eviction. This was a ruling case which protected the miners of Mid and East Lothian. In Stirlingshire, Ayrshire, Dumbartonshire, Fifeshire, and West Lothian, our people were being turned out into the street. We are not going to allow that treatment to be meted out to our agricultural workers.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member is referring to court cases. Can he say whether the case of which he spoke was a court case, because he will realise that in a court action, a grant can be had.

Mr. Pryde: Who knows the procedure better? So long as there are sheriffs in Edinburgh, I know our people will get a fair deal. I have no intention of binding our people to the cottages. They are separate entities, and so long as there is a Labour Government at Westminster, we are going to see that the agricultural population gets the same opportunity as the rest of the workers in Scotland.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member has not read the Lords Amendment because, before any grant can be given, the Secretary of State for Scotland, after hearing the views of, and consulting with, among others, the district wages committees concerned, has to certify that it is necessary for the worker to be near his home. That seems to be a satisfactory safeguard against the kind of eviction which we wish to avoid.
I am certain, although I do not wish to detain the House for more than a very short time, that hon. Members would wish me to say something in my own defence after the attack that was made upon me by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). I do not know whether I ought not to be flattered at the power that he seems to attribute to me. I want to assure him that I was not speaking from any brief when I spoke in Committee upstairs. All I was doing was to develop, in part of the speech I made, the argument that the agricultural industry in Scotland was not able to bear unaided the cost of reconditioning all the agricultural cottar houses in Scotland that are in need of reconditioning at the present time. In the course of making that case, I quoted from a survey which was made some years ago by the Scottish Land and Property Federation by means of a questionnaire sent out to the different counties in Scotland. That was all I quoted, and that was the only thing which could lead the hon. Member to think that I was speaking on behalf of that body.
I am not concerned about defending myself. I am concerned about defending this Amendment, which I think is a very good one, and I want to examine the three reasons given by the Government for rejecting the Amendment. They are not, it appears, disputing the fact that some tied cottages are necessary in Scotland. No responsible spokesman of the Government, and no Government spokesmen at all in either place, has suggested that some agricultural cottages are not necessary. Neither, indeed, could they, because we all know how necessary it is for the shepherds, and the herdsmen to live near the cattle, near the farm stables and near the byres which contain the beasts they have to tend. Particularly is that necessary in Scotland where we do not all live in villages and where the houses are spread about the glens and people have to go a long way to get to their work.
Nor, indeed, could the Secretary of State or the Government dispute the evidence which was offered by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, which pointed to the need in certain circumstances for tied houses on the farms of Scotland; nor the more recently issued Report of the Phillips Committee on Milk Services, which came to the same conclusion. Nor, I believe, would they want to dispute the recommendation made by the Scottish Women's Rural Institute which is not a political body, but is representative of a vast number of women from all classes of society in all parts of rural Scotland. The members of that body have agreed, and by a great majority, to a resolution which has been forwarded to the Government pleading that something in the way of reconditioning may be allowed for rural cottages in Scotland.
The second thing that the Government say against accepting this Amendment, as I understand it, is that they do not like its form, and that they would rather have more time to think about it, and would like to see how the Act works. Let us have time, said the Under-Secretary, to try out the Act. After all, he has had four years to see—or very nearly four years.

Mr. T. Fraser: I said "Let us see how the Bill works," and the hon. Gentleman suggests that I have had four years to see it. Of course, we have not had one

minute. The Bill is not yet an Act. Let us have the Bill.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Let me say in simple language what I wanted to say. Nearly four years ago, about November, 1945, the Government withdrew the Housing (Rural Workers) (Scotland) Act. When that was done, the Government spokesman, who, I think, was then the Lord Privy Seal, promised us that shortly we would have something better. We have been waiting nearly four years for that—and have got this Bill. We have looked forward to this Bill for a long time, and find that it contains no provisions which can be remotely considered to be in replacement of the Housing (Rural Workers) (Scotland) Act. No grants are given except under the condition that a house must be untied. This Amendment says that a grant may be given only that where the Secretary of State certifies, after taking the advice of the district wages committee and the agricultural executive committee, that a particular house is necessary for the working of the holding.
May I pass to the third reason advanced by the Government against accepting this Amendment? I think it is the most extraordinary reason that could be given. Ever since this Bill was introduced, there has been a kind of suggestion that here was a great cleavage of opinion. It is suggested by Government spokesmen that there is a deadlock between the National Farmers' Union and the Farm Servants' Union in Scotland. Because of that deadlock—that is the term which has been used over and over again—the Government cannot put into this Bill provisions about reconditioning.
I must not quote what the Government spokesman said in another place, but I think I can paraphrase it by saying that it was suggested that the Secretary of State could not see his way clear to making any kind of grant out of public funds to farm servants who, through their own union, had indicated that they did not want that grant. It was suggested that the grant could not be made to farm workers because the union to which they belong—which consists of about only one-eighth of the farm workers in Scotland who are eligible to join—has said that for some reason it does not want cottages to be reconditioned with the aid of Government grants. The right hon. Gentleman feels,


therefore, that his hands are tied. That is the negation of statecraft. The right hon. Gentleman has to see what is best for Scotland and make up his own mind without consulting sectional interests. If he finds that sectional interests express strong views, no one will deny his right, indeed his duty, to attempt to reconcile and prevent conflict.
I challenge the Secretary of State to go to any rural part of Scotland—and I have gone to a good many in the last two months—and suggest that there is not the greatest disappointment, and the greatest disgust, at the Government's attitude. Farmers and farm workers realise that they are to be the sufferers. I am not going to pursue this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it, and I am not surprised that they do not like it. I do not think they will like it when the country has to make its decision during the next six or nine months and they find that throughout the rural areas there is the greatest dissatisfaction with the Government's attitude on this matter.
I am not fighting for any sectional interests—although perhaps I ought to have declared an interest, because I suppose if grants were available I might be able to take advantage of them, and do some reconditioning which I would have liked to do long ago. I have not at any stage fought, nor will I ever fight, for any sectional interest, but I believe that the great sufferers under this legislation will be the key farm workers like the grieve, the stockman, the cattleman, the herdsman, and the shepherd, because in a great many cases they will have to go on living in unimproved cottages which otherwise might be improved. That is why I so deeply regret the attitude of the Government on this matter.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): A wide discussion has taken place far beyond the bounds of the Amendment. Indeed, it has ranged into the pros and cons of the tied cottage, but there is nothing—

Major Guy Lloyd: On a point of Order. Is it right for the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on the Chair in that way?

Mr. Speaker: I quite realise that the Debate was getting out of Order, and I

endeavoured to stop it. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that I said that a hare was started, and it was foolish to pursue it.

Mr. Woodburn: I said that, in order to indicate that I did not intend to cover many points raised which do not affect the merits or demerits of the Amendment. May I take the heat out of the matter, and return to the merits of the Amendment by saying that the State grants under this Bill apply to all houses for the community whether they are occupied by farm workers or anyone else. This Bill makes no distinction in regard to any workers. It covers every type of house in the community. I am asked to agree that public money should go to repair certain types of farm workers' cottages known as service cottages or tied cottages.
When we come to that question, we come into a realm where there is a considerable amount of heat, and perhaps some prejudice on both sides. I have had the opportunity of trying to reconcile the various points of view on this matter, and no one has done more in that direction. So far I have had no positive result from those efforts. I notice that every hon. Gentleman opposite is convinced in his own mind that this Amendment is for the benefit of the farm workers. My difficulty is that the farm workers' representatives do not believe that. Therefore, I am in a rather difficult position. Hon. Gentleman opposite say that they are fighting for the farm workers, while the farm workers' representatives are fighting to refuse their assistance, which makes the situation Gilbertian.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question germane to this point. Is he satisfied that he is getting sufficient people from outside the ranks of the agricultural workers coming in? I believe that the position of these tied cottages is preventing that.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: No doubt we can discuss that in the agriculture Debate. The point is that the farm workers, through their accredited representatives, refuse to accept the benefits under the conditions we are advised by the other House to place upon them. It is alleged, in argument against that, that the Farm Workers' Union represents only one in


eight of the workers. But the farmers' union advise me that they accept the Farm Workers' Union as representing the farm workers.
The benefits of this Bill are there for the taking, on the same terms as any other citizen, by the farmers and owners of farm cottages. They argue that they do not want to accept them on these conditions, because they want to retain the conditions of the service cottage. They have put their case to me and to hon. Members opposite, and nobody can doubt that there is a problem here which requires some solution. There is no possibility in my mind of abolishing what is called the tied cottage in any reasonable length of time. I am anxious that the farmworkers should have the benefit of this Bill, and if there is a method by which that can be achieved I should be most ready to give it consideration.
The farmers themselves, in some cases, have raised considerable obstacles to that being done, because they have put forward as their reason for wanting to retain the tied cottage that they can evict a person in it without any formality whatever. I am satisfied that this House would never pass a measure which gives such an unrestricted opportunity to a farmer to turn people out. The farmer can get possession of his cottage by going through certain formalities, although that means a little delay. The farmers' union tell me that in only a small percentage of cases do farmers ever ask their tenants to leave.
This problem, therefore, is about an infinitesimal number of people who can be evicted. The great number of farmers and farm workers in Scotland get on perfectly well together, and there is no bitterness between them. They work on reasonable terms, and there will be no difficulty about putting their cottages on tenancy conditions and bringing them under these conditions to receive the grants. Therefore, while there is a problem, it is not nearly of the dimensions suggested by hon. Members opposite.
I am glad to say, on behalf of both the farmers and landlords in Scotland, that the conditions that have been described are nowhere near the truth. A large number of these houses, maybe more than half, were repaired under various measures before the war. A large number of them are new houses

built by farmers who wanted to see that their farm servants got good conditions. This idea of 50,000 farmworkers living in such misery that they do not even want their cottages repaired sufficiently to ask the union to arrange for it is fantastic.
We have got to come down to the fact that the problem is a small one, and is largely restricted to the point that a few farmers may want to throw their people out without any terms or conditions. The House will never agree to that, and therefore the farmers must find some way of getting their tied cottages put on reasonable terms which this House will accept, and which do not result in conditions of life which the farm servants will not tolerate. When they do that, and get the farm servants to agree that those conditions are reasonable, those factors will count in our approach to the question.
Though I am rejecting this Amendment tonight, I did examine it with great care to see if it met the conditions I laid down. I am sorry to say I am not satisfied that the Amendment is the solution to the problem. I am quite willing to examine it further. This is not the last housing Bill we shall pass, and most housing Acts require some adjustment or little alteration to put them into working order. There will be opportunities in due course to deal with this question, if it can be solved. No one has done more to bring the parties concerned together and to get rid of prejudice.
There is no possibility of anyone making any profit out of this Bill. It is designed to see that no one does make a profit out of it and ensures that all the benefit goes to those who occupy the houses that are improved. The only advantage that the person who improves a cottage gets is the residual value when the house becomes decontrolled. On the grounds of impracticability and because this is no solution which meets the present position, I ask the House to follow the advice given by the Joint Under-Secretary.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are very disappointed at the response of the Secretary of State. He did not apply himself at all to the Amendment before the House. He said that it is a question of a small number of far-


mers who wish to have the right to throw their workers out without any terms at all. That is not what the Amendment suggests, nor is it remotely connected with it. This Amendment is hedged about with every kind of safeguard to ensure that that does not happen. The right hon. Gentleman asked that the olive branch should be held out. Here is the olive branch, after long and careful consideration which went on up to such time that we only had this Amendment before us this morning after the Bill has been reviewed for a considerable number of months both in this House and in another place.
The only argument the right hon. Gentleman has made is that there is some objection on the part of the Farm Servants' Union. But 35,462 houses have already been improved under the Housing (Rural Workers') Act, which, in its turn, was objected to by the Farm Servants' Union. If previous Secretaries of State had listened to these objections, 35,462 houses which have been improved and lived in by agricultural workers would not have been improved.
Some of these houses are part of the 50,000 cottages mentioned, and some are

ready for further improvements, because housing standards are rising all the time. Baths and other amenities which have been introduced are desired by the agricultural workers as much as by anyone else. The Secretary of State is not justified in refusing to accept what is admittedly a compromise Amendment. The only objections to it are that it is hedged around with too many safeguards, but it is only hedged around with safeguards because of the care that has been taken to safeguard the position.

Here is a practical solution, a compromise solution to a question which has been admitted on all sides still to exist, and is likely to exist for a very long time; and all the Secretary of State says is that on some other Bill, or on some other occasion, this problem might be solved, even on the lines of this Amendment, and that perhaps this is the way to do it—but not now. We say: Do it now. It ought to be done now; it could be done now; it should be done now. We shall vote for it being done now.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 62.

Division No. 246.]
AYES
[11.12 p.m.


Acland, Sir R.
Daggar, G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Houghton, Douglas


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hubbard, T.


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Attewell, H. C.
Deer, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Delargy, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Awbery, S. S.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Ayles, W. H.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Balfour, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Janner, B.


Barton, C.
Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Berry, H.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jones, Jack (Bolton)


Beswick, F.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Keenan, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Ewart, R.
Kenyon, C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Fernyhough, E.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Kinley, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Format, J. C.
Lavers, S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lindgren, G. S.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gibson, C. W.
Longden, F.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gilzean, A.
Lyne, A. W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McAdam, W.


Burden, T. W.
Gooch, E. G.
McEntee, V. La T.


Burke, W. A.
Grey, C. F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Callaghan, James
Grierson, E.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, F.


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Coldrick, W.
Guy, W. H.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Collindridge, F.
Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Collins, V. J.
Hale, Leslie
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hardy, E. A.
Mellish, R. J.


Cook, T. F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Cooper, G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mikardo, Ian


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hobson, C. R.
Mitchison, G. R.


Cove, W. G.
Holman, P.
Monslow, W.




Moody, A. S.
Segal, Dr. S.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Morley, R.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sharp, Granville
Warbey, W. N.


Moyle, A.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Watkins, T. E.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Shurmer, P.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Weitzman, D.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Simmons, C. J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


O'Brien, T.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Orbach, M.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pannell, T. C.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Wigg, George


Pargiter, G. A.
Snow, J. W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Parker, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilkes, L.


Parkin, B. T.
Steele, T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Pearson, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Stokes, R. R.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Popplewell, E.
Stross, Dr. B.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Stubbs, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Swingler, S.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Proctor, W. T.
Sylvester, G. O.
Willis, E.


Pryde, D. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Randall, H. E.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wise, Major F. J.


Richards, R.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Yates, V. F.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Titterington, M. F.



Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Vernon, Major W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Royle, C.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gage, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maude, J. C.


Bennett, Sir P.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Odey, G. W.


Boothby, R.
Harden, J. R. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bowen, R.
Haughton, S. G. (Antrim)
Pickthorn, K.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Pitman, I. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, A.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Challen, C.
Hutchison, Col, J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Channon, H.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lipson, D. L.
Turton, R. H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
McFarlane, C. S.
York, C.


Drayson, G. B.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)



Duthie, W. S.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Ht. Hon. Walter
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Major Conant and Mr. Digby.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Elliot, Commander Galbraith, Mr. Malcolm Macpherson, Mr. Willis and Mr. Secretary Woodburn: Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Committee to withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (PROCLAMATION)

Message from His Majesty [26th July], considered.

Message again read.

Resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty thanking His Majesty for His Most Gracious Message."—[Mr. Ede.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.